Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Cattle Head Deboning Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knapman]

Mr. Peter Viggers: When the BSE tragedy struck this country, I shared with my constituents a sense of distress for the cattle involved and for the agriculture community. I little thought that the BSE problem would have an immediate impact in Gosport, because it is not an agricultural area. We Gosportians—I grew up there, and I have represented the area for 22 years—are proud of our constituency, but the last thing we would claim for it is that it is an agricultural area. One will not see a pig or a sheep in Gosport. We have hardly a horse, scarcely a cow and only a handful of goats.
Because we have so few agricultural animals, we value Felicia park at Forton, which is a mildly eccentric and totally delightful farmlet where children can see live farm animals. Without that opportunity, they may not know what farm animals look or smell like in the flesh. I hope that Felicia park will continue, despite the development in that area.
It was, therefore, a surprise and a shock to receive a plea from a local firm for help following the BSE scandal. Pinnacle Meats has a serious problem: proportionately it is the worst problem of anyone affected by the BSE crisis. It was at that point that I learned about the cattle head deboning industry. I trust that hon. Members had a good breakfast before the debate.
I should say a few words about the trade so as to put the problem in context. Before March this year, cattle were killed in abattoirs and the bulk of the carcase was handled within the mainstream butchery trade. That business is vast: it is so large that it operates from enormous factories, its turnover is huge and its profit margin is correspondingly small in percentage terms. It will be important to bear that in mind when we consider the head meat boning industry later.
By contrast, the cattle head deboning business is tiny. It operates through about 12 firms, typically with 12 to 20 employees. It is a highly specialised part of the trade. It buys cow heads from abattoirs, takes them to purpose-built premises where the edible portions—mainly the cheek—are removed under strictly controlled conditions, and the remainder is dispatched for destruction, also under strictly controlled conditions.
Pinnacle Meats in Gosport is typical. It was set up by Graham Reed and John Gray in 1988, and established itself in the trade with four employees. United Kingdom and EC regulations became more stringent after 1988, and

it was increasingly necessary for such small firms to buy specially designed equipment. In 1992, Pinnacle Meats moved to new premises in Gosport and took the lease on larger premises in an industrial estate. To carry on its business, it had to invest in expensive, specialised equipment.
The company had to comply with the EC cutting plant licence for 1992, and the cattle head deboning regulations imposed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which applied from August 1995. I am told that that is the only part of the meat distribution trade in which producers require a special licence.
The rules were strict. I visited Pinnacle Meats and I saw the way in which the rules were observed. The cattle heads were kept at regulated temperatures from the moment of slaughter to the moment of dispatch from the cattle head deboning plant. Temperatures and cleanliness were vetted at every stage by MAFF officials, who had right of entry at all times. The quality of the meat was vetted on arrival at the deboner's premises, and there were strict rules to ensure that the paths of the raw material and the product did not cross.
Record keeping was, by regulation, meticulous, and it had to be available to MAFF inspectors at all times. There were daily audits of stocks, with reconciliation of input and output. Maintaining those standards was expensive. At a cost of £300,000, Pinnacle installed epoxy resined floors, special wall cladding, metal detectors, code-printing weighing scales, vacuum-packed conveyor systems and a special scissor lift to enable the product to be loaded directly into a specially designed bay. The equipment was highly specialised, and referable only to the business of cattle head deboning. Those who have visited any such premises in any part of the country will know that there is no way of readily transferring equipment of that kind and using it to operate any other kind of business in the meat industry, or other industries. It is purpose designed.
As I have said, all that cost about £300,000. Most of the businesses involved were small family businesses. As hon. Members will know, it is normal for banks lending money to small family businesses not just to lend on the security of the company, but to require the security of the home of the proprietors. Pinnacle is typical of many small firms—the trade was chiefly concentrated among smaller firms—in that its proprietors borrowed against the security of their homes. They borrowed because they were told that they had to in order to comply with the regulations. In other words, the Government told them that they must spend the money to stay in business, and they had to take up the security of mortgages on their houses in order to do that.
In that way, Pinnacle and other companies built up a useful and profitable business. Pinnacle was deboning about 300,000 cow heads a year, providing a useful service to abattoirs and purchasers of the product and a profitable business for their employees. The process usually involved the removal of cheek meat, some of which was considered a delicacy. Pinnacle, for instance, exported 10 tonnes of cheek meat a month to France, where it is sold as a delicacy—joue de boeuf. Hon. Members who have had the opportunity to eat joue de boeuf in the Crillon may not know that it probably came from the industrial estate in Gosport. That was a matter of pride to my constituents—until 29 March 1996.


Until that day, the business was providing joue de boeuf, meat spreads, sausages, hamburgers and other meat products throughout the United Kingdom and, indeed, Europe. Graham Reed and his partner had a sound, profitable business; they employed 25 people, who produced food in strictly controlled conditions. Then came the BSE scare, and the Government reacted by taking action against cattle. On 29 March 1996 they passed the Specified Bovine Material Order, which states that the whole of the heads of cattle that died in the United Kingdom, apart from the tongues, constitute specified bovine material that may not be sold for human or animal consumption. People who had profitable businesses on 28 March 1996 woke on 30 March to discover that those businesses had been destroyed. I reiterate that they had borrowed money that they now had no way of repaying, because they had no businesses.
Let me make two points about the Specified Bovine Material Order. First, there is nothing wrong with head meat. Foreign head meat is still being sold. It is head meat from cattle that die in the United Kingdom that cannot be sold for human or agricultural consumption; foreign head meat can be and is being sold in this country. We have become importers, rather than having a profitable export trade—Pinnacle had an export trade worth £ 15,000 a month to France alone. That is because the authorities in the United Kingdom are concerned only about the possibility that the method of slaughter used in UK abattoirs will lead to contamination of head meat. They are not bothered about head meat from other parts of the world. Head meat that is eaten now can come from anywhere other than Britain.
Secondly, no one has ever suggested that the UK cattle head deboners have any done anything wrong. They were controlled, and operated in a sterile environment; their businesses were well run and efficient. It is in no way their fault that they have been put out of business—for that is what has happened. The order of 29 March made the product illegal, and ended the trade.
Hon. Members may ask why the deboners do not go and do something else. The trade was highly specialised: it operated on specialised premises, and with specialised equipment. Pinnacle's blast freezer capacity was 30 tonnes a week, which is minuscule in comparison with that of larger meat producers. As I explained earlier, the larger producers operate with vast quantities, and because of that they work on tiny margins. It is impossible for a head deboner who, because of his specialised trade, was working on a margin of about 10 per cent. to compete with the mainstream meat business, which typically operates on margins of between 0.5 per cent. and 1 per cent.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the circumstances that he has described are the same in all similar bovine head deboning companies around the country, such as H. J. Wilson in my constituency? The point is that the owners of such concerns never had time to look for other business. They had all borrowed heavily to meet the requirements of the regulations, and on the day on which the order came into force they had no choice but to close their businesses. They did not have the option of looking elsewhere, because of the Government's determination to take action

to restore confidence. Why should the owners of such companies bear the brunt of the cost and the anguish of losing their homes because of action that was taken allegedly for the wider good?

Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Over the past eight months or so, I have been struck by the similarity of many points put to me by hon. Members.
A trade like cattle head deboning might be expected to range from tiny one-man businesses to larger businesses employing between 50 and 100 people. Not at all: the nature of the trade lends itself very well to businesses employing about 20 people. Typically, these are family businesses, although there are one or two instances of deboning being carried out by larger companies. They were proud of what they were doing, and they had borrowed in order to comply with European regulations. In almost every case, they did not have enough capital to continue unless they borrowed. Virtually all the firms in the trade were small family businesses, which borrowed against the security of houses and subsequently went bankrupt when they had to close. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) for citing a company in his constituency.
It is not possible to switch from deboning cattle heads to deboning the heads of pigs or sheep. Some companies have tried, but purpose-built premises such as theirs do not lend themselves efficiently to any other business. It can be done, but it is rather like using a Ferrari to go shopping. This is a highly specialised business, which does not compete well in the normal field of the meat trade.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is the hon. Gentleman aware—as I have been made aware—that the Government have now instructed abattoirs not to process sheep heads? That alternative has been closed off. Apparently, however, the abattoirs are being compensated for the loss of their business, whereas cattle head deboners are not. Is that fair or consistent?

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Let me take this opportunity of saying that concern about the issue extends across the House and, indeed, across the United Kingdom.
I was not aware of the position that the hon. Gentleman describes, but the inconsistencies in regard to compensation are such that, in my view, the present situation is untenable. I cannot look my constituents in the eye and defend what is currently happening.
If we accept that those companies cannot readily move to any other kind of business, we must also accept that the only answer is compensation. By temperament, I am not one to demand compensation for everything—I am laissez-faire on the more hard-right wing—but in this instance, I feel that points should be made on behalf of our constituents. They should be given the opportunity to set up in some other business, perhaps parallel, but different from the business that they were in before. So what of compensation? Would it set a precedent?

Mr. Robert Hughes: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not being able to stay for the full debate due to Select Committee business, but is there not an inconsistency in that the Prime Minister talks of


compensation for farmers while the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food talks about stabilising the market? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, once we land in the area of compensation, we are inevitably driven to the compelling nature of the deboners' case, as the Home Secretary was driven last night into saying that he was initially prepared to compensate only for the loss of handguns, but now accepted that he probably had to give compensation for ancillary materials. It is always difficult to argue by analogy, but there is a parallel here that the Government should consider. There is grave injustice for the people needing compensation.

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Over the months, he and I have maintained contact on the subject of compensation and on the difficulties suffered by the trade. It is good of him to find time in advance of his Select Committee to come to the Chamber to support the plea for compensation.
Would compensation set a precedent? I have conducted a little research. I gather that the Oral Snuff (Safety) Regulations 1989/2345 is one sort of parallel, but when oral snuff was banned by the Government with that regulation the people who distributed oral snuff did not suffer particularly because other parts of the tobacco trade made up for the loss. Similarly, the Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations 1992/3067 caused some difficulty in the building trade, but few companies specialised in asbestos.
I tried to find a parallel for the Government, by edict, banning a business. The advice that I was given earlier this year by the House of Commons Library ran as follows:
I have been unable to find a comparable example of a recent Order with as dramatic an effect as the one to which your enquiry relates".
So it sounds as if this is unprecedented.
Let us look for other parallels. The BSE orders allow farmers to be compensated. In a letter to me on 17 July 1996, the Prime Minister said:
our policy is to target support at those sectors which are essential for a secure and efficient beef supply chain".
Bully for the beef supply chain, but what about the people who cannot carry on and who have been driven out of business?
Another parallel is salmonella. Since 1989, compensation has been paid to chicken farmers for their entire flock, on a varying basis from 60 per cent. to 100 per cent. of its value. The hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) put his finger on the latest example. It is only 12 hours ago, almost to the minute, that I, for the first time in my 22 years in the House, voted against the Government. I did so on the issue of compensation and gun control.
The Government have decided to ban most handguns and to compensate handgun owners. On legal advice yesterday, the Home Secretary told the House that he would also be compensating for equipment. He was specifically asked—the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North made the point and I reiterate it—by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) about compensation for people in the gun business. He said:
is it not clear that it would be grossly unjust if the money resolution did not cover people who have businesses—for example, shooting ranges with long leases—that will no longer receive any revenue?

They are likely to go bankrupt … Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that the money resolution will cover such people so that the House can debate the point?
The Home Secretary replied:
My right hon. Friend is unaware of the precise terms of the revised resolution. I cannot give him the total assurance that he requests, but I have said—I hope that he will take comfort from it—that in deciding the precise scope of the revised money resolution we shall take full account of points made in the debate today, including the point that he has just made.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): My hon. Friend is in danger of misleading himself. If he reads on, he will find that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary went on to deal specifically with that point again. Referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), he referred to the distinction
from claims for compensation for loss of trade and business. So far as I am aware, there is no precedent for such claims and I would arouse false hopes and expectations if I were to give my right hon. and hon. Friends any comfort on that point. There is a clear distinction between the two."—[Official Report, 12 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 181–2.]
The Home Secretary said that there is a clear distinction between loss of money in relation to accessories and loss in relation to a business.

Mr. Viggers: That is not the point. I was in the House and I recall the moment well. I prefer the Home Secretary's first reply to his second.
For the sake of argument, let me accept the point of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I regret the ban on handguns, but if they are to be banned, I suppose that the owners should be compensated. Where is the principle in all this? If it is fair, right and in the public interest to compensate a gun owner for the loss of his gun, which is part of his sport and his hobby, how much more must it be right to compensate someone who has been made bankrupt by Government edict? Surely that is a much more forceful point.

Dr. John Reid: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the case is slightly stronger than even he makes out? People who may, unfortunately, have bought guns that are no longer available, at least bought them of their own volition. The vast majority of the debt of the deboners whom we are discussing has been incurred for machinery and expenses. It was incurred not on the volition of the owner or the deboners, but precisely because of Government and European legislation. Those deboners are being doubly punished, first, by spending the money at the Government's direction and, secondly, in being that by a second Government edict that they have no way of repaying that money.

Mr. Viggers: That is absolutely right. To comply with Government requirements, these people spent and borrowed money to bring their premises up to standard. That is precisely the point.

Mr. Robert Key: May I say to my hon. Friend the Minister of State that there is no parallel here. I listened extremely carefully to what my right hon. and learned Friend Home Secretary said yesterday. He was talking about loss of trade or business in future. What we are talking about, on behalf of our constituents, is an ex


gratia payment—if the Government do not like the term "compensation"—for the confiscation of private property to meet the Government's requirements, as advised by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. That surely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) would agree, is the point. We are talking not about loss of trade and business in future, but about recompense for confiscation.

Mr. Viggers: The interventions in my speech have again made clear how widely the feeling of anger is shared by hon. Members. Clearly, it goes across the United Kingdom and affects every part of the UK. It is shared by all parties in the House. We have been stirred to anger on behalf of our constituents and we expect something to be done about it.

Mr. Batiste: May I ask my hon. Friend to draw a specific distinction between compensating companies for the equipment that they have had to buy to meet their trade, as opposed to a more theoretical argument about future loss of earnings? There is an exact parallel with guns. On the day after the Government's announcement on guns, an ammunition factory in my constituency closed because no business was left for it. Overnight, all the specialist equipment, which is just as specialist as deboners' equipment, became worthless.

Mr. Viggers: I understand that the Government did not start negotiating, but were prepared to receive information from the industry to calibrate the amount of compensation that would be required. I understand that the trade responded by putting together a compilation—I have a copy here—showing that the gross overall value of the trade was about £11 million. The amount of money spent to comply with regulations in the past three or four years was calculated at about £2.25 million. I am told that the trade was optimistic that negotiations would take place, leading to compensation, and that those negotiations, or preliminary discussions, were broken off. The Government are not now prepared to receive information about the value of the trade. Those are the figures should the Government decide to compensate. I support the claims of those who enjoy the sport of shooting, but the claims of the head deboners are absolutely justified, and they have an overwhelming case.
The Minister will have had his speech prepared for him by civil servants who put together what are known as building blocks. The essential building block will be the argument that has been put to me in reply to many letters and parliamentary questions about compensation, so the Minister will read to us:
The reason is that we are not able"—

Mr. Baldry: Let me help my hon. Friend because, so far, he has failed totally to address the main point of the debate, and I fear that he has been misled by the House of Commons Library on the Skoal case. Lord Justice Taylor said about that case that is would be wrong for the Government to pay compensation where Parliament, with proper and due diligence, has caused a business to suffer. He said that there was no right to compensation if a business was lost as a consequence of that. That was the judgment of the High Court as recently as 1990.

No compensation was offered as a result of the statutory instruments to which my hon. Friend referred, and I fear that he has been misled by the Library.
The point that my hon. Friend has not so far addressed in his speech, and which mine will deal with because I did draft it, is the concept of settled public policy. No Government at any time have ever paid any compensation for the loss of business—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I would prefer to see the Minister's face rather than his back.

Mr. Baldry: No Government at any time have paid compensation for the loss of business, consequent upon a decision of Parliament. My hon. Friend must deal with that fact, but he has yet to do so.

Mr. Viggers: Let me range a little more widely. If my following comments sound irrelevant, I hope to prove their relevance.
I came to the House in 1974 and I was told about a group of widows called the pre-1950s widows. They were the widows of men below the rank of W 1, who retired before 1 August 1950 and who did not receive a service pension. For five years I campaigned on behalf of those widows. I did everything: I introduced 10-minute Bills, tabled early-day motions and initiated late-night debates on the subject. I remember that at one Conservative charity ball I waltzed the then Mrs. Thatcher around the floor and I told her about the case, and she took an interest in it.
I am extremely proud of that five-year campaign on behalf of the pre-1950s widows. Every time I raised the issue in the House, a Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said that there was no precedent and that it was absolutely impossible to do anything for those women. I was told that the Government could not make ex gratia payments to service widows. Eventually, however. Sir Keith Joseph stood at the Dispatch Box and said that although the rules said we could not do it, the broad view revealed that it was not fair and that we had to compensate them. We did it—we gave service pensions to those widows. It took five years of campaigning and I had five years of Ministers telling me that it was impossible, but then we did it.
I retract my earlier comment to my hon. Friend the Minister about his speech being drafted for him by civil servants. Of course he wrote his own; I always wrote my own speeches when I was a Minister. Other Ministers, however, have explained the refusal to pay compensation to deboners as follows:
The reason is that we are not able to make exceptions to the policy of targeting aid at the essential links in the beef supply chain. If we did, we would need to extend the exceptions to cover claims from other groups. We have looked very hard at whether head de-boners could be defined as a unique group but we have concluded this is unfortunately not possible.
I do not accept that the problem is insoluble. In 1534 this House agreed that King Henry VIII was head of the Church. If it can do that, it can do anything. If this House said that tomorrow is Wednesday or Saturday, subject to European regulations of course, it would be because this House is virtually omnipotent. Where there is a will, a way can be found. I ask my hon. Friend and his colleagues to look again at the issue and find a way to compensate that small industry.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on obtaining this Adjournment debate. I also congratulate him on making such an excellent case for such hard-working people. He has covered every problem that they face.
The Glasgow meat market is based in my constituency. I was contacted by Mrs. Fyfe who worked in the meat trade and I was horrified to hear that on a Thursday evening she received a fax from civil servants at the Scottish Office instructing her to stop trading. I challenge the Minister's argument about the decision of Parliament, because Mrs. Fyfe's business was closed down on the instructions of civil servants. From the Friday, Mrs. Fyfe and others had to cease work.
As the hon. Member for Gosport said, it was not so long before that that the same civil servants instructed Mrs. Fyfe and others who work at the Glasgow meat market that, to comply with European Community standards, they had to buy the necessary equipment for their particular trade. Mrs. Fyfe had to go to her bank and say that she had been instructed to buy certain equipment because of EC regulations. She said that she needed a loan to keep herself, her husband, her daughter and her four employees in a job. The bank said that that was fine and agreed to give her a loan, but she had to put up not only her business as security, but her home.
I have been a Member of the House for 17 years. I have heard Ministers say how we must encourage small businesses, which are the answer. We have been told that we cannot bring great big factories into cities like Glasgow but we can encourage people to show initiative. I remember when Mrs. Thatcher said the Government would encourage people to show initiative, get on their bikes and create small businesses. The argument was that a small business may employ four or five people, and other businesses with similar numbers of employees may develop, so before long a group of people are in work and have the dignity of employment.
Mrs. Fyfe's husband was a black cab driver in the city of Glasgow. He was out in all weathers and at all hours to raise the money to start their business off. The Fyfes did not make a fantastic living from it, but they earned enough probably to enjoy a decent holiday every year. It was hard work for them, but now they have been left with no livelihood.
The Fyfes have not said to me that they are looking for big money, but, as the hon. Member for Gosport has already said, they want compensation to claw back the money they had to spend to meet EC regulations They want something to enable them to start up another business. It must be appalling to have to say to four or five people, "I am sorry, but I have to let you go." We are not talking about a big organisation, where the employer may pay off people he does not know. Mrs. Fyfe may have employed just four people, but those men and women have worked for her for 20 years. She knows them and their families. She knows the consequences of telling them that she must lay them off. In a city like Glasgow if a person is over the age of 40 the chances of re-employment are slim, especially when the industry that formerly employed him has been closed down.
I went to see Lord Lindsay, and he said, "No, I am not compensating farmers." I could only scratch my head, because all that I had been hearing from the Agriculture Minister was that he would look after farmers. Lord Lindsay said, "No, we are not compensating farmers. We are intervening and buying their cattle." It is a rose by another name. I do not mind if we call it "intervention" for the beef industry, but let us provide compensation.
I was a trade union official. Sometimes bosses would say, "I'm not going to pay overtime, but I'll give good expenses." No one complained if expenses were equivalent to the amount of overtime that people deserved. They could call overtime whatever they liked. If Ministers wish to call compensation "intervention", I shall be happy to go to Mrs. Fyfe and other people who work in the industry in Scotland and tell them, "I'm sorry; they're not going to give you compensation, but they will give you intervention." I would be as happy as Larry with that—as I am sure the hon. Member for Gosport and other hon. Members would be.
I think back to the most recent debate we had on the problems in agriculture and to the words of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who said that the BSE problem does not start and stop at the farm gate, but that it goes beyond and into meat markets and into industries such as head deboning. The Government must face up to that fact. In a few months, as culled cattle enter slaughterhouses, there will be serious problems. The effect of any decision made by Parliament is that some people—such as Mrs. Fyfe—will lose their livelihood, but, as in this case, within the year, other people will become millionaires.
The Government are prepared to pay about £40 per head of cattle that goes to a slaughterhouse. People conducting the slaughter will be able to sell the cattle hides for approximately £20. I am not very good at mathematics and failed my mathematics exam, which is probably why I am a Member of Parliament, but even I can understand that, with 5,000 cattle per week in Scotland—I do not know the overall number for the UK—we are talking about a very large number.
The cattle that will be slaughtered are not suffering from the disease. They are healthy beasts—but the situation must make farmers sick. I do not know much about the farming industry, but I know that a farmer will sit up all night with an ill beast, and that he will spend more on vet's bills for his cattle than he probably would spend on doctors' bills for his family. He knows his responsibility. Farmers will have to take healthy cattle to slaughterhouses because of the Government's actions. But that is another matter.
Mark my words: many millionaires will be created because of this. It is a crying shame that people such as Mrs. Fyfe and those mentioned by the hon. Member for Gosport have to suffer. Those men and women have made great sacrifices. They did not clock in at 8 am and clock out at 5 pm. They worked long hours, and, after working those hours, they sent in reports to civil servants at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and then did their bookkeeping. We are talking about small family businesses.
I do not like attacking any hon. Member who is not present in the Chamber, because that is not the done thing. However, I was appalled when I saw on television the way in which the Agriculture Minister conducted himself


in Europe. It did not help the men and women who are losing out when they saw him strutting about Europe wearing a 1930s-style hat and two watches, like an eccentric Englishman. People's appearance makes a difference, especially if they are in a position of responsibility. The Minister's press conferences and arrogant manner did not help or inspire confidence in people whose livelihoods depend on his decisions.
We are not talking about a great deal of money for compensation. I ask only that people be compensated for improvements that they made in their businesses, which were required by a decision made by Parliament.

Mr. Robert Key: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on saying everything that I would have wished to say. He has, therefore, considerably shortened my speech on those points. I am grateful for that, because I can now say something extra.
It gives me no pleasure at all to be critical of the Government when, at last, matters seem to be coming right for our farming industry. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the way in which the cull is starting to make a deep impression on the crisis in the countryside. The situation is coming right. However, one problem is not coming right.
On 20 March 1996, my hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made a statement to the House on BSE. I asked him about the paramount importance of food safety and the need for market support mechanisms. The answer he gave could not have been clearer. He said:
People sometimes suggest that the interests of agriculture and farmers are MAFF's overriding concern, and obviously they are of great concern to us; but our paramount duty is to public safety—the safety of the food chain and of British food. That is the paramount duty owed by my Department, and myself as Minister to the House and the country."—[Official Report, 20 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 396.]
He cared, most of all, for the food industry.
On 28 March 1996, at Agriculture Question Time, I raised the issue of head deboners, warning of the closure of food processing plants. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), replied:
While I sympathise with, and have every concern for, my hon. Friend's dilemma, it would be quite wrong for the Government to challenge the scientific advice that we have accepted at this Dispatch Box."—[Official Report, 28 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 1160.]
She said that she had every concern for my dilemma. I was not asking for the Government to challenge the scientific advice.
Nine months later, it is demonstrably clear that the interests of agriculture and farmers are MAFF's overriding concern, and that "every concern" does not extend to the head deboning industry. Nine months later, I am posed another dilemma. On today's Order Paper, I see that my right hon. Friend the Agriculture Minister invites me to congratulate
the Government on the action it has taken to deal with the BSE crisis",

and to welcome
the package of support the Government has provided to the beef industry".
That is, indeed, a dilemma.
I think of the case of Touchmead Ltd., in Amesbury—an important town in my constituency, which has suffered job losses because of the situation. I shall listen carefully to what Ministers say in this debate, and in the debate later today, before I decide whether I can, in all conscience, support the Government today.

Mr. Batiste: My hon. Friend touched on a very powerful issue. If there is a need, in the public interest, to take action—as, for example, in the case of guns or of beef—we can agree with the principle, but the action must be applied with justice if the Government want to have the support of their Back Benchers. That is the message that the Minister should take away from this debate.

Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall now reinforce the point that he has so clearly made.
Touchmead Ltd. of Amesbury constructed a whole new plant. It moved out of the centre of town to a countryside location. It did so to conform to new regulations. In 1995, that new plant was once again upgraded. The head deboning section was renewed. The firm was working for the quality end of the market, supplying some of the best-known food chains in the country. It was a major exporter of some of its products, particularly to France, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport has pointed out. "Waste not, want not" was a pretty worthy phrase to use with regard to head deboners—a little-known part of the British food chain.
We are talking about large quantities of food. Touchmead Ltd. was dealing with 800 bovine heads and 900 porcine heads a day, and a tonne of bovine flank and rib and two tonnes of offal every week. A veterinary report on the company said that public health risks were very well catered for. It continued:
Particular attention has to be paid to the safe handling and disposal of Specified Bovine Offal. Changes have been made in the handling techniques with the advent of the new guidelines.
The present management has a very positive attitude to meat hygiene. They regard themselves as being at the forefront of their particular field. They often turn to the OVS"—
the official veterinary surgeon—
for help and guidance in the resolution of meat hygiene related problems.
As the proprietor is always anxious to seek new markets, a considerable effort has to be made to ensure that he is aware of the requirements for these.
Because of the restricted hours of attendance it has been our"—
the vets—
deliberate policy to vary the time of day at which we attend the plant.
That report was made on 26 February.
On 28 March, I received a letter from the veterinary officer who was responsible to MAFF for looking after that company. He said:
This purpose built factory conforming to EEC standards has been visited by us on every working day for the past 2 years.
In our opinion they carry out a good job in their function of removing useable meat from bovine and pig heads for further processing.


To our knowledge they have complied with all requirements from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, where necessary amending their techniques to conform to any new legislation.
We feel it is ridiculous for their factory to be under threat of closure due to proposed changes in legislation which are likely to prohibit the use of any useable meat derived from bovine heads.
On 29 March, Touchmead Ltd. was closed by the Government. A decision was taken somewhere along the line not to pay any compensation. There is no alternative use for the deboning capital equipment, and the irony, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport has said, is that imports are continuing of foreign head meat-meat subject to less stringent controls than our own.
I feel very sorry for my hon. Friend the Minister. It is a peril of collective responsibility that he has drawn the short straw today. I would rather see my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, with whom I have had many discussions on the matter, sitting on the Front Bench. Ultimately, of course, it is his decision whether this tiny amount, this maximum of £11 million, is paid. Farmers have received £2.5 billion to cope with the crisis that affects them.
A line always has to be drawn somewhere concerning any payment and it is the unpleasant duty of Ministers, acting on the advice of their civil servants and MAFF's accounting officer, to decide where to draw it. Clearly, with such decisions, natural justice should not be offended. The decision should not be arbitrary but should properly take into account all relevant factors—in this case, compulsory new investment. The decision taken by the Government not to pay anything to the small number of firms in the head deboning industry is unfair. It offends natural justice and it is arbitrary. That is bad government. I do not mind whether the help is called compensation, ex gratia payments, intervention or market support. If there is no precedent, it is time to set one. Mention has already been made of firearms, salmonella in eggs and other inconsistencies.
During the BSE crisis, the Government have been accused of many things. Let us face it, that is partly because 80 per cent. of hon. Members do not understand rural affairs very well. They do not therefore understand that the entire rural industry—be it animal feed, machinery or Land Rover dealers—has been shaken by BSE and the cash flow in the rural economy has simply stopped. Even lawyers and accountants have had to wait for their bills to be paid. The banks have been very understanding about head deboners. I talked to the bank manager concerned and he was very helpful. I talked to the collectors of taxes on behalf of my friends in the head deboning industry, and they were very understanding. The Inland Revenue has behaved impeccably. Even travel agents have been affected by the BSE crisis in the industry. Things are becoming right at last—but not on cattle head deboning.
What has happened to the head deboners did not happen to farmers, who have been through hell but have at least had £2.5 billion to help them during the crisis. What has happened to the deboners did not happen to the livestock transport firms, which have been very busy indeed. I dare say that some of the people involved will end up millionaires, and good luck to them. The same did not happen to the abattoirs or the renderers, which have worked very hard and are doing very nicely, and good luck to them. The same did not even happen to the livestock markets. They lost massive revenue but could

limp through the crisis, and their market trade is returning. The head deboning industry will never return. The Government had to act on SEAC's advice, but they did not have to confiscate private property, put hundreds of people out of work and not pay a penny piece to help.
It is the ill-fortune of the deboning industry that it comes within the remit of MAFF. The DTI would not have treated it in the same way, nor would the Department of Health. The industry got tangled up in MAFF and has been treated as the tail-end Charlie of this awful crisis. One Minister has been quoted as saying recently,
there is no cattle head deboning industry and that's tough".
It is especially tough for Mr. and Mrs. Ron Styles and their 60 former employees, who did everything that was asked of them and have been let down.
What is to be done? It is not too late. The Government do not have to wait to be forced into action by the courts. There is something else, of course, that they can do: contribute the modest amount of money that we are asking for on behalf of our constituents. When the nightmare of BSE is behind us and farmers, consumers and the food industry have regained their old confidence and worldwide markets once again respond to the excellence of British food from British farmers, we shall have to revisit the reform of MAFF itself. The food production industry can hold its own with any industry. It belongs in the DTI, and so does the fishing industry, given the chance.
Land stewardship and land use are increasingly integrated into the responsibilities of the Department of the Environment. Perhaps those functions belong there. Food regulations and standards should long ago have gone to the Department of Health. Consumers would prefer that and as a result would have more confidence than they do in the self-policing of poor old MAFF.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: I was rather hoping that the hon. Gentleman would tell us about the consequences of the closure of the company in his constituency for the people who ran it. The principals of two companies in my constituency—Lilacmead and A. J. and J. A. Cattermole Ltd.—have lost their businesses and their homes as a result of the crisis. Was that the consequence of Touchmead's closure as well?

Mr. Key: Two generations of the Styles family, the owners of the business who started it from nothing in the town of Amesbury, have been affected. More than 60 families have been directly affected due to lay-offs as a result of the arbitrary action. Many, I am glad to say, have been re-employed, but too many have not.
After the BSE crisis, we need to make a new start. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, even at this stage, not just to tell us that there is no precedent and that he can do nothing about the problem but to be prepared to look again on behalf of all our constituents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport has so eloquently requested, to see whether a way through can be found. We do not mind what the help is called, but we do mind about the reputation of good government.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) not just on securing this debate, but on the


consistent work that he has done from the outset on behalf of head boners. I know that that work is appreciated on both sides of the House and across the country. We welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman is continuing to press the case and we are glad to have the opportunity to back him up.
I have said before that my constituency is probably more affected by the BSE crisis than any other. It is affected across the range of the industry, from hill farms to abattoirs—there are two abattoirs in my constituency, but with the new boundaries there will be three. I represent a range of aspects of the meat processing industry. To take some of the edge off his support for the Government's measures on the cattle cull, I can tell the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and the House that Scottish farmers will not be satisfied until the Florence agreement is implemented and the selective cull is in process. That is essential before the ban can be lifted or a timetable for that lifting can be drawn up. The industry is 30 per cent. dependent on exports.

Mr. David Trimble: The situation is worse in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Bruce: I understand that the proportion is even greater there. We need progress towards the lifting of the ban.
We are addressing the particular problems of the head boners this morning. Mr. John Troup, who lives in Deystone in my constituency, was the principal of T and T Meats, a small company that used to exist in Aberdeen. He is in the same desperate plight as other hon. Members have had to bring to the attention of the House. His small business employed five people, specialising exclusively in taking the meat off cattle heads. He was trading profitably, making between £50,000 and £60,000 on the business in the previous full financial year. He had reinvested that money in the business and, like others, had extended the mortgage on his house.
Mr. Troup is desperately fighting a rearguard action to save his house, working as a fish packer to get some money to try to meet his basic overheads. His wife has been forced to abandon the further education course that she was pursuing and take a manual job in an attempt to keep enough cash coming in to avoid the house being recovered by the building society.
That is the effect on a previously successful small business that has been closed down by Government edict. The Government have said only that they are not paying compensation because it is not Government policy to do so. There is no legal remit: the Government have simply decided not to.
I have a letter—I am sure that other hon. Members have similar letters—from Lord Lindsay, the Scottish Office Minister responsible for agriculture, to the solicitors representing the Scottish head boners. He says:
I sympathise with the head deboners"—
I am afraid that sympathy will not be enough—
whose business activities have been greatly affected by the measures introduced on 29 March and I fully understand the difficulties this has presented for them;"—

I wonder whether he does—
but as has been made clear previously, the purpose of the financial assistance which the Government has made available is to provide market support to keep the essential links in the beef supply chain operating while companies adjust to the changed market circumstances. It is not, and has never been, Government policy to utilise public funds to compensate businesses for losses incurred as a consequence of decisions taken to strengthen public health controls.
That says only that it is a policy because it is a policy. The House must recognise that the distress of those businesses requires the Government to revisit the policy and decide what to do about it.
We are not talking about business failure resulting from the cumulative effect of a number of measures over time. We are talking about people who went to work as usual one morning to find a fax on the machine telling them to cease business immediately—the same day—without compensation and that disregarding that fax would be a criminal offence. That is quite different from going out of business because of various measures that make the business non-viable, which usually allows for some time to readjust and retrieve something, rather than having the entire business taken away.
I understand that the Association of Cattle Head De-Boners is taking the Government to the European Court of Human Rights. Lord Lester QC has advised that there is no domestic remedy, but the European route has a high probability of success. The association's solicitors say:
the Junior Counsel engaged on the drafting of the documentation believes that the chances of the members succeeding has increased greatly since the initial consultation with Lord Lester.
I do not want to intrude on the Government's grief in their experiences in European courts, but it would surely be better for them to face up to their domestic responsibilities than for the issue to be resolved in the European Court of Human Rights, creating another cause of potential humiliation and perhaps anger in some quarters of the Government. They can avoid that by taking action in advance.
The issue may not affect many businesses or jobs—I think that the estimation is that 100 jobs will be affected in Scotland—but the loss of livelihood for the individuals involved is of unprecedented proportions, coming with no warning or opportunity to find any other compensation or alternative business. Whatever the Minister's brief, I hope that he will not close options and will undertake to revisit the issue. Saying simply that the Government have no policy to pay compensation is not a good enough answer. These people deserve compensation. They were doing their business and had their livelihoods removed as a direct result of a faxed instruction from the Government. The Government must accept their responsibility.

Mr. John Whittingdale: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on his determination and persistence in pursuing the case for the head boning industry and on the eloquent way in which he has put the case this morning, which will allow me to be comparatively brief.
Until the beginning of the year, I was unaware of the existence of the head boning industry. I became aware of it when I received a letter from my hon. Friend the


Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food informing me that a firm in my constituency, Latchingdon Fresh Meats, had failed to make the necessary changes to its premises to comply with the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995.
The proprietor, Mr. Ken Pearson, had requested a derogation, but my hon. Friend was minded to turn it down. However, she offered to meet Mr. Pearson, and we met on 19 February. I pay tribute to her sympathetic and understanding attitude. As a result of that meeting, it was agreed that Mr. Pearson would make the necessary changes. He has spent some £30,000 to bring his premises up to European requirements. That is a substantial sum for a business of that size, but he was able to borrow the money because he was running a thriving, successful business. The business concentrated on the sale of fresh meats, but 40 per cent. of it was in head boning. He was boning some 400 ox heads a week.
The Government's announcement six weeks later wiped out that part of his business at a stroke. He immediately had to lay off two people and was left with £15,000 worth of virtually unsaleable stock. The loss of the ox head boning business also affected the rest of his business, more than halving his turnover. Six months later, after the Government's measures, he is just about going, but it is still a struggle.
Although there are only about 30 head boning firms in the country, I soon discovered that a second one, Pearce Meats, was also located in my constituency. Bigger than Latchingdon Fresh Meats. it is exclusively a head boning business. Before the Government's measures, it was boning some 2,000 ox heads, and between 4,500 and 5,000 pig heads a week. The Government's measures have wiped out between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. of its business. The company immediately had to lay off four people.
Like Mr. Pearson, Pearce Meats had also invested to meet European standards—some £80,000 to £100,000 during the previous four years. On each ox head, it previously made a profit of about £3. The Government's ban immediately cost the company around £6,000 a week. As a result of expanding the pig head business, Mr. Pearce has just about got the company back into profit, but it has taken four months, during which he did not think that his business could possibly survive. Those whom he was forced to lay off have not found new jobs.
The general point, which was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, is that, whether the ban was justified is arguable; foreign head meat is still being sold. However, I accept that the ban is here to stay. The point is that both firms in my constituency did everything that they were required to do. They invested substantial sums at the behest of the Government yet, a few months later, the Government wiped out their business at a stroke.
Unlike other parts of the meat processing industry, which will recover in time, there is no prospect of recovery for the head boning industry, yet it is the other parts of the industry that have been given substantial sums in compensation. I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that that is unjust. The amounts involved are not great, but my constituents deserve better treatment than they have so far received. I urge my hon. Friend to listen to the arguments and to give us something today that we can take back to our constituents.

Dr. John Reid: The number of hon. Members who wish to speak in this debate is testimony to the breadth of support for the case put by the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). I will make my remarks as brief as possible so that other hon. Members can participate.
I have no pecuniary or commercial interest in the matter, and I have no specialised knowledge of it—indeed, I find it difficult to pronounce some of the words associated with this great problem, far less get my mind round them. However, I have two interests in the matter. One, of course, is public health; the other is that I know an injustice when I see one and I believe that there is an injustice in this case.
We need not rehearse what happened on 29 March or before, but I want to make two points, the first of which has been made by everyone. I wrote to the Minister as soon as the injustice of the case was brought to my attention by a company in my constituency, as was the case with other hon. Members. I refer to Wilson Young Ltd., part of the National Products Company in Shotts. I have still not had a satisfactory answer or explanation. Why were companies based in the United Kingdom, even in areas such as Scotland with an extremely low incidence of BSE, prohibited from entering the trade, when the same products could be imported from countries that had instances of BSE, some on a small scale but some on a par with the Scottish experience?
The most important issue is compensation. On 29 March, my constituency firm was hit by a whirlwind. We have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), and from the hon. Member for Gosport, about faxes saying, "Cease trading immediately." That is what happened in my constituency.
The Minister should think again. I am left, as are other hon. Members, with constituents who have complied with every Government regulation, observed the rules as laid down by the Government and the EC and who have invested in machinery specifically for the purpose. Compensation is available for farmers, for market support to help the essential links and supply chains, for abattoirs and for the beef stock transfer scheme, but none of that offers any consolation to people such as our constituents.
Head meats sourced from outside the UK are a sufficient problem, but when there is no compensation at all, their importation adds a gross injustice to an insult to many of our people. In most cases, the debts were incurred neither as a result of investing to speculate and to accumulate nor as a risk taken on the market, but as a direct result of Government instructions and Government regulations. It seems to me that there is a clear distinction between compensation for future trading profits and recompense for debt incurred as a direct result of Government instruction. I plead with the Minister, as other hon. Members have, to rethink the Government's position and to make some recompense to people whose lives were destroyed on 29 March.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): I say, first, to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) that I have no difficulty dealing with the brief from the point


of view of collective responsibility. Some of my hon. Friends have given the impression that some of the decisions that have been taken are capricious or arbitrary. I hope that my hon. Friends accept that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and all the other Agriculture Ministers have taken great care over the issue. Of course we have listened carefully to the representations made to us by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), whom I congratulate on introducing this Adjournment debate. He did so very fairly and in full deference to the interests of his constituents. I fully understand his concerns.
We have, of course, looked at the matter time and again over this summer. Our decisions have, as I hope to explain to the House, been by no means capricious or arbitrary. They have been taken with great care, having regard not just to the Government's policies at the moment, but to long-standing, settled public policy and settled UK law.
The debate concerns established principles of compensation. I fully recognise that several issues such as compensation and market support have been raised, and I hope that I can distinguish them for the satisfaction of the House this morning.
The long-standing public policy on compensation is clear. There is a well-established principle in public law for paying compensation for loss of property as a result of Government action. The European convention on human rights requires the payment of compensation where property is expropriated. That principle means, simply stated, that when an individual is deprived of his property, fair compensation for that deprivation, subject to any overriding circumstances in the public interest, is properly due.
Where, under the over-30 months scheme, it has been necessary for cattle to be slaughtered, that is, in effect, the confiscation of property, and compensation flows from that action. Compulsory purchase is an example of compensation for loss of property. It has, however, also been a long-standing matter of settled public policy that no Government are under any obligation to pay compensation to a business for any loss of opportunity of carrying on that business which may arise from Parliament's properly considered legislative decisions.

Mr. Trimble: The Minister talks about compensation for loss of property. Does he accept that that principle should extend to cases where property is rendered valueless as a result of Government action, which is what has happened to the equipment purchased in this case? The Minister referred to the European convention on human rights. Will he give us an assurance that if the action taken under the first protocol is successful, the Government will implement any decision immediately?

Mr. Baldry: There is a considerable distinction in that no property has been expropriated. The case to which I referred in my intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport is relevant to this point. As the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made clear, no one involved in the matter has made any attempt to suggest to the High Court or to any of the courts of the United Kingdom that the Government's actions have been outwith UK law. If people feel that they have a remedy

elsewhere, such as the European Court of Human Rights, they must investigate that remedy. It would be hypothetical to suggest what may or may not happen.

Mr. Batiste: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Baldry: I will not give way because there is an important principle to be made clear. I will give way to my hon. Friend if I have time later.
In this case, there has been no confiscation or expropriation of private property. What has happened is not a loss of property. We should be clear that we are talking about the loss of a business. Here the principle is clear. The Government do not compensate for loss of business. That was demonstrated clearly in the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport referred. Indeed, in many ways, the Skoal case may have been based on stronger grounds than is the head boners' case. As Lord Justice Taylor made clear in his judgment of the case in 1990:
The applicants challenged by way of judicial review the decision of the Secretary of State for Health … to make the Oral Snuff (Safety) Regulations 1989. The Regulations provide that no person shall supply, offer to supply, agree to supply, expose for supply or possess for supply any oral snuff …
During 1984, the applicants were looking for a manufacturing and packaging base outside the United States. They discussed with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Industry Department for Scotland the possibility of setting up a factory to market these products in Scotland. They were encouraged by the Government departments to do so and were offered a Government grant by way of incentive. In the result, the applicants built a factory at East Kilbride, near Glasgow, which was opened in 1985. They received £193,357 of Government grant.
The company had been encouraged by Government grant to set up in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Key: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Baldry: I shall give way when I have finished this point.
The business was closed as a consequence of legislation. The applicants complained to the High Court that they should receive compensation because they had been encouraged to set up the business. On that specific point, Lord Justice Taylor said:
the decision to ban the applicants' products is tantamount to a breach of contract or a breach of representation and, as such, is an abuse of power. However, a Minister cannot fetter a discretion given him under statute. Provided he acts within his statutory powers, rationally and fairly, he is entitled to change his policy.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Baldry: I shall give way in a moment, but I wish to make my points in some order as it is important to establish the principles relating to these important matters.
In giving judgment, Lord Justice Taylor held
that it would be absurd to suggest that some moral commitment to a single company should prevail over the national interest
and that the company's loss of business, though consequential on legislation, did not justify a legal claim for compensation from the Government.

Mr. Key: The Meat and Livestock Commission was offering grants to the companies. My constituent's company, Touchmead, was pursuing the possibility of such a grant, but it did not work out. Surely that was a clear indication that the Government were inducing companies to borrow money and take risks in exactly the way that the Minister has described.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend clearly did not hear me correctly. In the Skoal case, the company was given a grant to set up in business in East Kilbride. To that extent it had a better case or was at least on all fours with the case that my hon. Friend mentions. In that instance, the High Court ruled that provided the Minister acted properly, there was no cause for compensation if the business ceased to trade as a result of a decision by Parliament.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I expect that the Minister is absolutely right in the legal sense, but the arguments that have been put by hon. Members on both sides of the House go beyond that in terms of the Government's moral obligation in respect of the hardship that has been inflicted on the companies.
I appreciate that the Minister is under certain restraints in terms of Treasury budgets, but will he consider two quick suggestions? He knows that there was substantial overpayment in compensation to slaughterhouses, which has never been clawed back. I do not know whether some agreement has been made, but there may be some scope within existing budgets to redirect some money towards this sector of the industry.
Secondly, the Government stopped the marketing and processing grants scheme, which is an EU scheme. Will he reconsider that scheme, as it might provide some assistance to companies that have moved into other sectors such as pig head deboning?

Mr. Baldry: I am endeavouring to explain to the House that our decisions have been taken on long-established principles of public law. The fact that we have been unable to offer head deboners the assistance that hon. Members are urging upon us is not a matter of being moral or immoral, but of following long-established public policy and law.
That was made clear in the House yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. Perhaps I should have read the whole exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and my right hon. and learned Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives specifically asked:
Will he take fully into account compensation for the stock of weapons and accessories that such businesses hold and for loss of trade?
My right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that there should be a distinction between claims for compensation for loss of trade and business. He said:
So far as I am aware there is no precedent for such claims and I would arouse false hopes and expectations if I were to give my right hon. and hon. Friends any comfort on that point."—[0fficial Report, 12 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 182]

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The Minister is not prepared to set a precedent on loss of trade, and we all understand that. Although there might be a moral argument for compensation, it is not necessarily being sought at the moment. In compliance with the regulations, businesses have spent money on equipment that has been rendered totally useless by a further regulation. Can the Minister not compensate those businesses purely for property that they bought to comply with the regulation and is now of absolutely no use to them? If he has to cover himself by confiscating it, he should do just that, but there should be some compensation.

Mr. Baldry: We have not been uninterested in the representations that have been made to us by my hon. Friends the Members for Gosport and for Salisbury, among others.
On at least two occasions we have taken counsel's opinion to see whether we can provide further help to cattle head deboners under established law. Contrary to what some people think, Ministers do not have powers capriciously and freely to dish out public money. They have to have some legal authority to do so. When we took counsel's advice, we thoroughly reassessed the case for a change of public policy on supporting deboners, following the meetings that my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport had with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. We then sought further advice from leading counsel in the field. Of course we considered the matter carefully.
Counsel's opinion was that, having regard to established law and public policy, the cattle head deboners were not entitled under domestic law to compensation for the loss of their business resulting from the decision to classify the whole cattle head as specified bovine material.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: As there is all-party support on the matter, surely the solution is perfectly simple. Blow the QCs—we should bring in a perfectly simple Bill that would be backed by both sides of the House.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend, who I suspect may have supported the Government last night—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No.

Mr. Baldry: I am sad that we did not have her support, but she will have recognised that, in a number of instances, such as with firearms, companies go out of business as a consequence of certain Acts of Parliament. This is another such instance. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), whose contribution to the debate was to make gratuitously offensive comments about my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, scorns. Of course there is a precedent. As a consequence of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, certain companies will go out of business. Last night, I heard no Labour Member urge that those companies should receive compensation for their loss of business. Clearly the Opposition pick and choose what they consider to be easy issues to attract public sympathy.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: rose—

Mr. Baldry: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who makes gratuitously offensive comments.
Ministers have to ensure some consistency in public policy, and we shall do that. The value of the cattle deboning industry has been assessed at some £l1 million. We have provided support and assistance to deboners because some cattle head deboners, as cutting plants, have benefited from the beef stock transfer scheme under which the intervention board has purchased unsaleable stock at 65 per cent. of the pre-crisis market price. Cattle head deboners have, therefore, benefited to the tune of some £6.7 million under that scheme.
Out of the total value of the business of £11 million, cattle head deboners have received £6.7 million, and the company that my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport mentioned has received more than £100,000 under that scheme. It was also open to the cattle head deboners to apply for unsaleable stock to be taken off their hands under the separate disposal scheme that we introduced for downstream sectors. I appreciate that those who have companies wish the Government would come up with the money, but hon. Members have not addressed today the long-established principle of United Kingdom law that no Government, at any time or in any circumstances, in any way, have paid compensation for the loss of a business following a legitimate decision of the House.

Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema

11 am

Mr. Michael Clapham: I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know this subject inside out, because you were at the forefront of a campaign in the past few years to have the disease prescribed. That campaign came to fruition when the disease was prescribed on 13 September 1993. Today's debate is about the callous and uncaring way in which the Government have treated former miners by failing to act on the recommendations that have come from the review carried out by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council of the prescription test for deciding chronic bronchitis and emphysema.
The Secretary of State for Social Security has had a copy of the recommendations on his desk since February this year—some three months before it was officially published in May 1996. In the mean time, many miners who would probably have been able to succeed with a claim under the recommendations of the review have, sadly, passed on.
Last week, I took the opportunity to check with Centris, the company that now manages the mineworkers' pension scheme, to find out how many miners in receipt of an occupational pension had died since April 1996. I used the criterion of the occupational pension because, as the Minister is aware, the qualification period to claim chronic bronchitis and emphysema is 20 years and, therefore, most of the miners who claim will be members of the mineworkers' pension scheme. Centris provided me with figures showing that 3,502 former miners had passed on since April 1996. I accept that it is not possible to say how many of them would have been made an award under the terms of the new recommendations, but it is fair to assume that a good number of them would have won through.
The House will recall that the disease was first prescribed on 13 September 1993. The prescription was made because new evidence, which was examined at the time by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, showed that the disease was an endemic risk of coal mining. The new evidence had come from longitudinal studies that had been carried out in America and Belgium. After that new evidence has been analysed, it showed a greater incidence of the disease among coal miners than in the general population and, consequently, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council made the recommendation that the disease should be prescribed.
The date of introduction was more than a coincidence. In my view, the Government timed it to sweeten the bitter pill of the colliery closure programme. In other words, political expediency led to the introduction of prescription. Now we find that the delay seems to be caused by public expenditure fears, which I believe to be totally unfounded.
In its first report in November 1992, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council recommended three tests for diagnosing the disease. The Government accepted those recommendations and implemented them in full. Under the tests, an applicant must first qualify by having worked underground for 20 years. That means that we are talking about miners who had a career in coal mining, not about people who left the industry after a few years. That is a fair point. Secondly, a miner has to show that he has


X-ray evidence of dust retention or simple pneumoconiosis. Thirdly, he must demonstrate a 1 litre or more reduction on the forced expiration volume test over one second. If his lung capacity is reduced by 0.98, he is ruled out because the criteria are absolute. I have seen cases in which a man has had a 0.98 reduction in his lung capacity, yet the examining authorities have not been able to make him an award. There is a need for greater flexibility, and the review accepted that.
Many people have been turned down because of the X-ray evidence. One of the arguments in the early days was about whether the X-rays were of the International Labour Organisation type. We got over that problem and the X-rays now conform to the ILO type, but many injustices still occur. I shall give an example to show the Minister what is happening. In my constituency live three brothers who spent their whole working lives in the industry. The Selwood brothers are aged between 79 and 83. The brother who is 79, Harry Selwood, has 100 per cent. pneumoconiosis. The other two brothers have no pneumoconiosis, but they are racked with chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Because they have been unable to show on their X-rays evidence of dust retention, the other two brothers cannot receive a payment for the disease.
Such examples led the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to carry out the review. It had soon become evident that the prescription test, as originally introduced, was unfair. The number of applicants and those receiving awards did not come anywhere near the figure that the Government predicted. At the time, the Government predicted that there would be 80,000 to 90,000 applicants.
In fact, the bulk of the applications and awards were made in the first year. I can say that because I have made comparisons between parliamentary answers. For example, on 27 October 1994, in answer to a parliamentary question, it was revealed that between September 1993 and September 1994 a total of 43,827 applications had been received. Of those, 40,338 had been processed and just 4,469 awards had been made. Two years on, according to a parliamentary answer given on Monday this week, by 30 September 1996 a total of 48,778 claims had been received and 5,352 awards had been made. The bulk of the applications and awards have been made and, in the past two years, only about 5,000 new applications have been received.
The number of awards is absurdly low and that has led to the prescription test being challenged by such people as Mr. Peake of Pontefract general infirmary and Mr. Howard of the Hallamshire hospital in Sheffield, two consultants who deal daily with miners suffering from the disease. It also resulted in a regionally based media campaign that included, for example, the Barnsley Chronicle, the Yorkshire Post, the South Wales Echo and the Nottingham Evening Post as well as regional television and radio. As a result of that campaign, the IIAC eventually decided to conduct a review. It started that review on 16 January 1995.
The council reported to the Secretary of State in February 1996. In the review, which was published in May 1996, the council recommended to the Government that the X-rays should be dropped from the prescription test altogether because there was clearly no connection between pneumoconiosis and chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Therefore, to call for X-ray evidence of simple pneumoconiosis did not address the problem. The

council considered that the FEV1 test should be amended, but that the 20 years underground qualification should remain.
In the final paragraph of his letter to the Secretary of State published at the front of the report, the chairman of the IIAC said:
The Council understands that these recommendations may lead to a large number of previously unsuccessful claims being reconsidered and may therefore be relatively costly to implement. Nevertheless the strength of new scientific evidence published since our 1992 report makes it necessary for us to recommend a revision of the terms of prescription. We believe it should not be necessary to review the terms of prescription for the foreseeable future unless there is evidence that levels of exposure to respirable dust in coal mines are increasing.
In other words, the chairman recognised that the prescription test set out in the original report of 1992 was flawed. It is appalling that the Government have so far failed to act on the IIAC review. One gets the impression that interference by the Treasury is to blame for this unjustifiable delay. Perhaps the Minister could shed some light on that.
I put it to the Minister that even if the total number of awards is doubled, the costs are easily manageable. It will not cost the Treasury one penny, as I shall show in a moment. I say that because currently 5,352 awards have been made. The average assessment is 55 per cent. The pension payable for that degree of disability is £54.72 per week. If my mathematics are correct, that works out at less than £15 million a year for the pension element. Administration costs would, of course, have to be added. So if as a result of the new criteria the number of applicants doubled to 10,700, the cost of the pension element would be about £30 million. As I say, administration costs would have to be added. The Minister may say that one of the reasons for the delay is the administration that is required to deal with large numbers of applicants.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: Has my hon. Friend seen a parliamentary answer from the Minister only last week which suggested a cost of £20 million in the first year, with £5 million administration costs? Does he agree that that is a small sum in the relative scale of things?

Mr. Clapham: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have seen that parliamentary reply. It suggests that the costs of introducing the new criteria set out in the review are manageable.
I said that changing the criteria would not cost the Treasury a penny because the awards could be paid for out of the £320 million that has already gone into the Treasury's coffers from the sale of British Coal's land. By anyone's reckoning, that is money that should come back to mining communities. If that source of financing cannot be tapped, the awards could be financed from half the annual surpluses that the Government rip off from the mineworkers' pension scheme. As the people whom we are talking about are elderly, clearly the cost will diminish year on year. Therefore, that £320 million could well pay for the scheme into the future.
It is an appalling indictment of the Government that they have sat on the IIAC recommendations for nine months. In the mean time, literally hundreds of former coal miners have died of the dust and have been unable to make a claim. Neither they nor their families, who in


many instances cared for and nursed them, have a chance of claiming benefit for their suffering. It is estimated that in the Barnsley borough 12 per cent. of the population are carers and that most of the people for whom they care are relatives who previously worked in the mining industry.
I hope that the Minister can tell us that the recommendations will be implemented immediately and that they will be retrospectively applied in view of the delay that has been caused by the Government.

Mr. William O'Brien: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing the opportunity to debate this matter. As soon as the debate appeared on the Order Paper, I wrote to Madam Speaker asking for the opportunity to take part. This is a significant issue which involves a substantial number of my constituents as well as others in west and north Yorkshire. My colleague represents south Yorkshire and I endorse all his remarks because they apply to miners in west and north Yorkshire.
As several hon. Members want to speak, I shall keep my comments brief. I wish to put a number of questions to the Minister. If he cannot respond to them this morning, they will be on record and I hope that he will follow them up after the debate. The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council report was presented to the Secretary of State in February this year and was made public in May. It recommended two main amendments. The first was that the forced expiration volume in one second test—the FEV1 test—should be retained but amended to allow underground workers who have small lung volume to be judged according to their frame. The second was that the need for radiographic evidence of coal dust retention be removed from prescription.
Since the report was published, I have received numerous inquiries from former mineworkers in my constituency. They asked how and when the report would be implemented. I wrote to the Secretary of State giving the names of some of the individuals who had been pressing me. The response has been negative. I should like the Minister to deal with a number of issues. First, when will the recommendations be implemented? That is what everyone wants to know. If he can give some indication today, that will be a step in the right direction. Secondly, will claimants denied benefits because they failed either the FEV or the X-ray test, or both, be granted benefit automatically, or will they have to reapply when the Secretary of State agrees to implement the recommendations?
Thirdly, will the widow or any relatives be able to make a posthumous claim because their husband or father failed the FEV and X-ray tests, but has since died? Will claimants who have satisfied the FEV test but have been denied benefit because they failed the X-ray test be automatically assessed? Will any benefits due to them be paid back to the date of their previous claim, or to September 1993 if the claim was submitted within the original time limit? A substantial number of people applied in September 1993, but it took three or four months before some qualified for the examination. If we are to be fair to them, they should receive compensation from September 1993. Will that apply to posthumous claims made on behalf of a miner's family? Will those claims go back to 1993?
We must also consider surface workers. Those of us who have worked in the mining industry are aware of miners who worked underground for perhaps 15 or 18 years, but then had to work on the surface in dusty conditions. Those men have been denied the opportunity of applying for benefit, and that is an injustice. The Minister must reconsider, because a substantial number of people who should be claiming benefit are involved.
We are told that 3,502 former mineworkers in receipt of an occupational pension have died since the report was presented to the Secretary of State. How many of those who claimed benefit were turned down because they failed the X-ray test? It would be easy to identify them. Since the Secretary of State received the report. how many appeals have been lodged on the basis that the X-ray showed no dust on the lung? The Secretary of State is sitting on a recommendation from the advisory council while people are being refused benefit because there is nothing on their X-ray. Those applicants are appealing, but that test will not now apply. How much will that cost the Department of Social Security? We have heard that there is a lack of resources to pay the benefit, but the Secretary of State's refusal to act on the recommendation is costing the Government money. However, the people who will pay most are the retired miners.
How many people have failed because of the FEV test? How many appeals have been lodged? If the Secretary of State implemented the recommendations of the report, it would solve many of the problems and many miners would not need to appeal against their assessment. We are also aware of people who—having been turned down because the X-ray did not show them to be suffering from category 1 dust—have died shortly after the X-ray and been found to have been suffering from category 3 dust, which causes pneumoconiosis. But because the regulations say that the X-ray should show category 1 dust, they have not qualified for benefit. The regulations are flawed, as the case now being pursued through the courts will reveal. In such cases, no payment has been made to the family or to the widow.

Mr. Peter Hardy: My hon. Friend will be aware that two years or more ago, some of us—including, I think, my hon. Friend—submitted evidence to the Minister that the quality and nature of the X-ray film being used did not allow a proper diagnosis to be made.

Mr. William O'Brien: That is a substantial point that we made in our evidence to the Government. A significant amount of evidence shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that an injustice is being done to many former miners.
In the 1950s, I worked at a colliery where 2,500 miners worked underground, and some 20,000 miners were working in the area at that time. Those were the numbers in the industry in the early 1950s, and—while other hon. Members will be representing some of them—few of those miners are left because they have been racked by industrial illness and injury. But for the few who remain, the recommendations must be applied immediately. Will the Minister address the points of concern that I have raised? If he cannot answer them this morning, will he ensure that we receive written answers so that people can be made aware of the Minister's response to the concerns of former miners?

Mr. Eric Clarke: I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on obtaining this debate. I think that I am qualified to take part as I am an ex-miner and for 12 years was general secretary of the Scottish area of the National Union of Mineworkers. I also represent a mining constituency, where many people suffer from the diseases in question.
As only 5 to 6 per cent. of Scottish claimants were successful in obtaining a pension under chronic bronchitis and emphysema prescribed disease D12, I was delighted to hear that the Government's advisory committee had agreed to recommend changes in the qualifying method. For example, the recommendation to drop category 1, pneumoconiosis, was a breakthrough. However, the Minister has still not embraced that change, although he received the recommendations in February and we are now in November. Are the Government waiting for most of the claimants to die so as to save the Exchequer money? As the economist John Maynard Keynes once said,
In the long run, we are all dead.
The Minister wrote to me in response to a letter that I had sent on behalf of the family of the late Joe Knox of Bonnyrigg, who died prematurely of bronchitis and emphysema, but was disqualified under the current scheme. The Minister's reply made the excuse that he did not have time to analyse the findings of his advisers, but he made it clear—as he has done to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien)—that no retrospective claims would be accepted. We cannot repay families for the loss of a relative's life or health, but a pension or lump sum might show that society actually cared in some small way for the sacrifice that they made. Many miners' families are extremely bitter, and they blame the Government for the way in which the situation has been handled.
I wonder how the Minister can sleep at night, knowing that he is a party to such a grievous injustice. But it is never too late: even Ebenezer Scrooge had a dramatic change of heart. I appeal to the Minister in the run-up to Christmas to change his attitude and shed some ray of hope on those affected in mining communities and particularly in my constituency. I hope that he will reconsider the policy of no retrospection and implement the recommendations immediately.

Ms Joan Walley: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing this debate.
I ask the Minister to note how many hon. Members signed the early-day motion and also consider all the correspondence. The issue matters a great deal, especially to hon. Members who represent coal mining areas. We have heard a great deal in the past 24 hours about how the House must determine issues of health and safety at work and deal with matters which, according to the Government, affect this country. In mining areas, nothing matters more than ensuring that those who have worked underground and have paid with their health get proper compensation for chronic bronchitis and emphysema.
Concern is not confined to ex-miners and their families; the British public realise how much suffering and hardship has been endured. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone spoke earlier about the newspaper campaigns, especially in Yorkshire, and in my area of north Staffordshire the Evening Sentinel is backing the cause. We need a proper answer from the Minister today. If we do not get it, we can turn the matter into a public campaign throughout the country, and especially in mining areas.
We must give ex-miners an assurance that they need not live in fear of the cold this winter. In north Staffordshire, about 90 per cent. of applicants for the benefit have been turned down. I spoke to the leader of the National Union of Mineworkers this morning and he told me that a huge number of men had died since the benefit was introduced in 1993. We cannot afford to let down those who are left and their families.
The compensation is not large, ranging between a maximum of £90 and £20, but for the men and their families it represents the ability to keep warm as we approach the winter months. We cannot afford to delay action for another 12 months. I have read the recommendations carefully and I have written regularly to the Minister. I recognise that the Government should have due time to consider the various recommendations, but how long must we wait for them to say whether they intend to implement them?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone said, it is right to do away with the X-rays and we should no longer count sickness and absence in the 20-year period that is being assessed. There should also be changes in the criteria for the lung function assessment. As new mining techniques mean that miners could be at risk from a more concentrated exposure to coal dust, the matter should be kept under review.
Will the Minister give us an absolute assurance about how much money is involved, how many people in his Department are working on the issue, and whether he has the staff resources to ensure that the recommendations can be implemented in full? Will he ensure that when he implements the proposals—as I hope that he will, not least because of public pressure—there will be proper arrangements so that an administrative blunder cannot create a three or four-year delay in assessment? The administrative arrangements must be in place, especially in coal mining or ex-coal mining areas, to ensure that the men who need the benefit and apply for it can be paid quickly.
Only last week I received a letter from a constituent in Bradeley village who said that she had followed carefully the campaign in the House of Commons and that, although it was too late for her husband, who had died, we should do what we could to get the Government to introduce the benefit in full and without further delay, on behalf of all the men who have died and all the wives and families caring for men who are ill. That is what we want from the Minister today.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is important to recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) has been slogging away on this campaign for ages; others have been involved—I and other hon. Members went to present


evidence at the Trades Union Congress, for instance—but my hon. Friend has been in the front row for a long time, and he is to be congratulated on his efforts.
The issue could have been settled relatively easily because, generally speaking, the Government are supposed to take on board what the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council—a so-called independent body, staffed by people with medical expertise—says about a case; although the council is a quango, I do not think that it has yet been stuffed with Tories. If the recommendations had come from the City of London, the Government would have implemented them within a couple of weeks and we might have had a statement from the appropriate Minister, but this is different: it is about miners and mining communities in areas of Britain where the Tories by and large have no political influence.
I put it to the Minister and to the Secretary of State, who is not here today, that I know what their game is: they think that miners vote Labour so they need not bother about them. That was their attitude when they shut the last batch of 31 pits. We are talking about communities that have been ravaged by the Government, especially in the years since the miners' strike. There are areas of mass unemployment: male unemployment is as high as 50 per cent. in some of the coalfield villages, despite the fiddled figures that the Tories trot out every day—we had another lot today. We are talking about real poverty.
Groups of miners, wealth creators who worked, in some cases, for 40 or 50 years, who dug the coal during the war and whenever it was necessary, are coughing their lungs up, and what thanks to they get? They are told that they can have an X-ray and an FEV test, that they have to have worked for 20 years and that if they were dragged out of the pit on their hands and knees and had to work on the surface for the last few years they would not qualify. There were about 10 different hurdles for people to jump. What happens? As my hon. Friend said, only 10 or 11 per cent. succeed. Yesterday, at Social Security Question Time, we heard about some tribunals where 50 per cent. of applications are successful, so 10 or 11 per cent. is a paltry amount.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have also been involved in this matter, probably from the beginning, in an attempt to put the matter on the statute book, so this could be described as an all-party affair, although it does not extend as far as the Conservative Benches.
What does the Minister have against miners and their communities? We are talking about a relatively small amount of money. The Government gave away the pits to Budge for a song; yet they cannot find this small amount of money to legislate on the recommendations of a body whose recommendations are usually accepted by Governments.
I remember only too well my efforts during the 1974–79 Labour Government to have a chemical factory disease prescribed. Some of my hon. Friends will remember that, because there are not many prescribed industrial diseases. When such a measure goes on the statute book, it is supposed to be implemented. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who was in the Department of Social Security at the time, had that recommendation accepted within a short space of time. Yet the present lousy, rotten Government have been

sitting on this matter for almost the whole of this year because they cannot stand miners who had the guts to stand up against this paltry Government on a number of occasions.
What is bugging the Government? This is not a Common Market directive. When we have a directive such as the one that we had from the Common Market yesterday giving workers three weeks holiday and a 48-hour week, one can understand that the Government have to give way to the Euro-sceptics in their party. But this is not a Common Market directive—it is British through and through—so why can the Government not implement it?
Just think about those miners walking along the streets of the pit villages, struggling from lamp post to lamp post. They walk 25 yards, then they grab at the nearest fence, coughing, their heads bent low. Then along comes Mr. Deputy Speaker and people such as my hon. Friends and they manage to convince the powers that be that there should be chronic bronchitis and emphysema legislation. It took years; then, when it was introduced, the Government emaciated it. Many thought that after 40 or 50 years they would see some rainbow, a little extra money to buy all the things that they had never been able to buy, but they finish up with this tinpot legislation.
Some of us decide to try to make things better and we make promises. We tell people that we will take the matter to an independent body. We do so, and that body goes along with many of our proposals. Yet this stinking Government do not have the guts to implement the recommendations. The Government should get off their knees and give some hope to people who have put more into society than any of those who sit on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a number of my hon. Friends wish to join in. I echo the reference made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to yourself. You will recall that I was one of the sponsors of the several Bills that you presented in an effort to achieve justice in this matter of coalfield concern.
On Sunday morning last, with a number of other people from my local community, wreaths were laid at the memorial to the men of Manvers Main colliery who were killed in the world wars. In the first world war, more than 200 men from that one pit died. More than 40 of them gained medals for gallantry, including the Victoria cross. Their grandsons and great nephews are suffering from these industrial diseases now. Yet they were labelled by the Government as the enemy within.
My hon. Friend referred to the substantial contributions made by people from the coalfields, yet they have not been treated fairly. In response to your private Member's Bills, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Government eventually gave way and allowed a scheme. Then they drew up qualifications and regulations which meant that only a tiny proportion of the men who applied would succeed. Yet their neighbours, people without political experience or qualification, knew well that those men were coughing and would die far earlier than they otherwise would have done.


While the Government have hedged, prevaricated and delayed, thousands have died. As my hon. Friends the Members for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) have said, the numbers are shrinking and the cost will diminish rapidly. The Government have taken a great deal of money out of the coalfields as a result of privatisation; we ask that a little of that money is put back into the areas where it was created.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: I hope that the Minister has heard the voices from coalfield communities all over the country—Scotland, Wales and the midlands—and that he recognises the strength of feeling there. He knows of the campaign to obtain the benefit in the first place. We need to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on that. Then there was the campaign to have the benefit reviewed because it was not meeting the needs of those involved.
The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council reported in February. It is now nine months on and the clock is ticking for many of those miners. They have given their health and lives to bring comfort and warmth to the nation. It is time for the Minister to make an announcement. Nine months is a long time in anyone's reckoning. For those who are ill and in the twilight of their days, it is important that we have an announcement now.
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the campaign by the Nottingham Evening Post, in which he has been quoted. Back in June, the Secretary of State told that paper that the recommendations would be implemented. If he can tell the Nottingham Evening Post in June that things will be good for former miners, why cannot an announcement be made here today in Parliament during this important debate?
Perhaps it has something to do with the cost. I am grateful for the parliamentary answer that the Minister gave me only last week, telling me that according to his calculations the cost in the first year would be £20 million with £5 million administrative costs. As many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, that cost will decline in future years as the group of beneficiaries gets smaller.
The coalfields have contributed to Britain's wealth, but the communities there have had a tough time. They believe that the Government have turned their back on them and walked away. They have buried the coal industry, but they must not bury those miners who are chronically crippled and ill without giving them the benefit of some extra help.
The Budget is due in a fortnight's time. If the Minister cannot make an announcement today, will he ensure that a decision is made as part of the Budget process? There may well be discussions, debates and perhaps some tension between the Department of Social Security and the Treasury at this moment, but the campaign will go on. People will not walk away from this. Enough is enough. It is important to make an announcement and pay the benefit now because many of the miners, their wives and families are in an intolerable situation.
Let us have an announcement now. The Government have had the opportunity to consider the matter for nine months. We know what the cost has been. The time has come to look after those who have looked after the nation for so many years.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on his campaign, not only on this issue but on many other issues relating to the mining industry. He has acted with his customary modesty, but I pay special tribute to his persistence in those matters, which is applauded by those us who represent mining communities.
Luckily, I still represent a mining community, but that is no thanks to this Government. It is thanks to the effort of the miners themselves—not to the Deputy Prime Minister, who was responsible for the privatisation programme and who made many promises during the passage of that legislation, most of which have been broken. Indeed, on 27 June this year, he told us that he was looking at the recommendations as a matter of urgency. I do not know what urgency means to the Deputy Prime Minister—perhaps it means working with civil servants in an attempt to commandeer them in his vain efforts to win the next general election. I can tell him now that he might as well give up and apply himself to matters of greater importance, such as this campaign.
The Minister, the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), himself represents a south Wales constituency—it might be ungracious, but I should add that he will not do so for much longer. I am sure that, in the next general election, that seat will be reclaimed for the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman knows the situation in south Wales and the conditions in which people live. From his practice in the area, he has known for many years the suffering that those communities have endured. He knows that, all along, miners and their families have had to fight for every penny of compensation that they have ever received from the state. When I was a journalist, I fought alongside the miners in the pneumoconiosis campaign. Everyone knows how hard the miners had to fight to get just compensation for contracting that terrible disease.
I was elected in the middle of a miners' strike. In 1984, I went down a small street in Penrhiwceiber—a small mining village known to the Minister. In every other house there was a man suffering from either bronchitis and emphysema or pneumoconiosis and many of those men were using oxygen machines at that time. I went down the same street a year later and was told, "He's dead," "He's dead," "He's very ill," "He's dying." That is why it is important that the matter be dealt with urgently. Urgency must mean more to the Deputy Prime Minister than five months' delay while people wait for him to come up with a response to those proper recommendations.
The Minister has, of course, been trying to explain why the reduced earnings allowance is a just measure, but I remind him that, ever since the Social Security Act 1986 was passed, disabled people and their relatives have been penalised by this Government. This is an opportunity to put matters right. We are not asking a big favour—the sum of money involved is small—but it would make an enormous difference to those miners and their families who are suffering as a result of an industrial disease that they contracted when they were working in our mining industries.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) for not having been present at the


beginning of the debate. He has done us all a service by obtaining the debate. Like many other Opposition Members, I come from a coal mining area and have many constituents who are worried about the current position.
When, after a long campaign of which you do not need reminding, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the House decided to classify emphysema and bronchitis as an industrial disease, many of us were greatly relieved. That was followed by massive disappointment, with many of my constituents finding that the tests to get compensation were so tightly drawn that the rejection rate was well above 90 per cent. For many years, I have been dealing with the case of Mr. George Lambton who worked for 51 years in Kiveton Park colliery in my constituency. He failed the tests that were originally used to determine whether someone qualified for compensation.
When I read the report published in February this year which revealed the weaknesses in the tests, I was greatly relieved and wrote to Mr. Lambton about it. I also discussed the matter with hospital consultants who were experts on the question of hard versus soft X-rays being used to identify the disease. What intrigued and pleased me about the February report was its findings on the FEV test—that lung capacity varies according to the stature of the individual.
Mr. Lambton is a very small man. He and his general practitioner are absolutely convinced that he suffers from the disease—now classified as an industrial disease—of emphysema and bronchitis, but he has failed the FEV test. As has been made clear by the report, the main reason for his failure is probably his stature—he is only about 5 ft tall. I wrote to him about the report and said that he should reapply for compensation for emphysema and bronchitis, and he has done so. It is nearly sorted out now—he went for an X-ray and was told, "Oh, by the way, you have pneumoconiosis as well, so you should apply for that compensation, too." Mr. Lambton's lungs are clearly in a bad condition.
Mr. Lambton's appeal has not gone through yet, but if he reaches that point before the regulations are changed to correct the problems with the original assessment, he will be back to square one. That is not good enough. When a report is published that clearly shows why there was a failure rate of more than 90 per cent., action is needed. It is wrong to leave thousands of people like Mr. Lambton in this state of limbo resulting from delay in implementing a sensible recommendation that would enable them to get the compensation from the state that they deserve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) pointed out that the Secretary of State said that the regulations would be altered. I hope that the Minister will come to the Dispatch Box to say that that will be done as soon as possible. If my constituent fails at his next attempt because the regulations have not been altered according to the recommendations, I shall tell him to reapply, and to keep going until he gets justice. The Minister should give some firm assurances about when that injustice will be put right—many thousands of people need it to be done straight away.

Mr. Henry McLeish: This has been an excellent debate and I hope that the Minister is thinking about what he is going to say. Hon. Members have spoken

with great emotion and the report contained cold logic, so I sincerely hope that the Minister has come here not with fine words, but with a commitment to accept the recommendations and to proceed quickly with implementation of the proposals.
There is a profound sense of injustice, anger and disappointment throughout the coalfields of Britain, and rightly so. Communities, ex-miners, miners' families, councillors, councils, mining unions, Members of Parliament and local newspapers such as the Nottingham Evening Post have campaigned vigorously over the past few years for the issue to be taken seriously and resolved. I join my hon. Friends in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) for his endeavours in this respect—he simply will not give up and that is a message that the Minister should understand. I hope that the Minister has something positive to say, but he should be under no illusion about the fact that, if he is not positive this morning, the campaign will go on and on until we achieve victory for the thousands of ex-miners up and down the country.
Emotion is important in the House and, this morning, we have heard passionate but concise speeches. These men have contributed greatly to the nation's prosperity—that is not in doubt. Many of them knew that their health was being damaged every day they went down the pit. The real tragedy is that the lives of some of those whom we hope will be beneficiaries are now ebbing away. They face the damage caused by chronic bronchitis and emphysema and that is linked to a sense of injustice and concern at the fact that they do not have enough cash in the household. That is not a situation facing the Minister, but it does face those families.
It is always useful to throw in one's own experience. My father was a mineworker for 30 years and his last trip up from the mine was on a stretcher. My grandfather worked for the private coal companies. The conditions in those mines were part of the reason for nationalisation. I have seen colleagues who have been councillors, lying in bed with an oxygen cylinder by their side. I am sure that that is not an experience shared by the Minister or those who advise him, but it provides a telling insight into the suffering that is endured by many of those ex-miners.
Of course, of itself, emotion is not enough on which to base changes to legislation or regulations. However, the emotion of this issue has been built on by the hard and compelling logic of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. Public interest should be represented. We have the emotion, the passion and the sentiment, but more important, we have the logic of an inquiry that has delivered recommendations to the Minister.
Given that emotion and logic, Parliament must respond. That is why there is a tremendous responsibility on the Minister this morning. He cannot duck the issue. All my colleagues have put their points to him and he has the report on his desk. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Social Security and a host of Under-Secretaries have uttered fine words, but they have been running. The Minister cannot run any further. He is faced with the contributions made by my colleagues and the logic of the report. I hope that he will rise to the occasion.
So far, the campaign has been successful, and that success encourages everybody to believe that we will go from strength to strength. It was as a result of the


campaign started by my hon. Friends that, in 1993, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council made emphysema and bronchitis a prescribed disease. It was through their efforts that, in January 1995 the IIAC decided to review the prescription because it was far too constrained and, as a consequence, out of 50,000 miners who had applied only a handful—5,000—got what they deserved.
The IIAC reported to the Minister earlier this year. It is worth restating that, in a technical area, the changes will make a profound difference to those seeking to obtain industrial injuries benefit. The report recommended dropping the requirement for X-ray evidence of pneumonoconiosis. It recommended keeping the 20-year rule but, importantly, making sure that it included sickness periods. It was outrageous that, initially, the 20-year period would not have included the sickness periods. The report recommended keeping the FEV test, amending it to allow for workers with small lung volumes. That seems to be elementary common sense and one wonders why it was not included in the first set of recommendations. One does not have to be a medical expert to realise that implementing those changes 'would allow a larger number of people to get the justice that they deserve.
The case has been made and that is not the basis for this debate. It is important to look at some of the comments that have been made from the Prime Minister through to the Under-Secretaries. To come right up to date, when visiting Nottingham a few days ago, the Prime Minister said that the matter was still being considered. The headline in the Nottingham Evening Post said, "Prime Minister, John Major, visiting Nottingham today, is still refusing to guarantee extra cash help for crippled ex-miners."
On 27 June—this has already been quoted—the Deputy Prime Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone that he would view the matter with urgency. What does "urgency" mean" The report has been on the Minister's desk since February and it was published in May. The Prime Minister spoke in November, the Deputy Prime Minister spoke in June and we have had many fine words from other Ministers. I am pleased to see in the House the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott), because during his time as a Minister he contributed to some of the more positive aspects of the debate.
Why the inactivity? What is the problem in a budget that spends £90 billion of taxpayers' money and which will rise in 1998–99 to £101 billion? This is the first group of Ministers to look forward to that level of budget, but they will see a Labour Government use it more effectively. I want to ask the Minister some direct questions.
The Minister has seen the report and has had expert advice. He knows of the hardship and misery that the delays are causing to people in the coalfield communities in Britain. Why the delay? I hope that he will give us the reasons. Although we have had some comments on the recommendations in the report, the Government have not overwhelmingly embraced its findings and recommendations. The Minister—I see him raising his eyebrows—may suggest that he has done that, but the comments were not specific enough for us to be reassured that, at the heart of Government, the scientific report has been accepted. I want to find out whether the recommendations have been fully accepted. When will the

Government implement the changes? My hon. Friends have already asked whether this is a battle between the Department of Social Security and the Treasury—it often is. We have not found out whether the Department of Social Security is whole-heartedly pursuing the Treasury—if it is the Treasury that is blocking this. Those are important questions.
The other issue which underpins the attack that we are making this morning goes back to the initial comments. This is supposed to be a Parliament for all the people of the United Kingdom. It is supposed to be a Parliament that looks at evidence impartially, weighs it up and makes recommendations. If I were an ex-miner in Nottingham, Barnsley or any other part of Britain and I was struggling for breath in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—I have seen such people walking along the streets—I would wonder what sort of Parliament this is. The partiality of this Parliament is often a disgrace.
If the debate is reported, it means that the public will have an opportunity to know about this excellent debate and the contributions made by my colleagues. Also, the Minister has an opportunity to become a superstar in the mining communities. That is not an opportunity that will fall to him very often. He has the chance to become a hero in the working-class communities of Britain. That must be a challenge for any Tory Minister.
I have been generous and have tried to reflect the excellent case that has been made by my colleagues. I hope that the Minister will say, "Yes, yes, yes," to all the questions we ask so that we can tell our constituents that this Parliament works for them and for Britain and that, on this serious issue, there was a consensus which paid dividends and people got their just reward.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing the debate, and I am grateful to him for that. I have been asked in a number of different ways by everyone who spoke, including the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), whether I will make an announcement. I shall begin by making my answer to that question clear. I am not able to make an announcement this morning. I did not leave that statement to the end of my speech, because I knew that hon. Members wanted to know my answer now. Let me explain where we have got to, and then I will reply to the debate in some detail.
I raised an eyebrow when the scientific medical aspects of the IIAC report were mentioned. The Government accept those conclusions: that is an important matter. I also make it clear that an announcement will be made shortly, but I cannot go into detail about what stage those matters have reached. I stress that the Government are attending to the matter, and an announcement will be made shortly. I cannot go further than that. I have no doubt that hon. Members will press me to do so, but that is my position.

Ms Walley: In view of what the Minister has just said, will he tell us what is holding up the announcement? Where is the blockage? Is it in the Treasury? Will he share


that information with us? We want to know why, having had sufficient notice, he is unable to make an announcement today.

Mr. Evans: It is tempting to answer the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), and it may be simpler for me to do so, but she will appreciate that I cannot. The matter is being attended to, and an announcement will be made shortly.

Mr. Tipping: rose—

Mr. Hardy: rose—

Mr. Evans: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone first, because he secured the debate and I think that he rose slightly more quickly than the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). [Interruption.] I am so sorry, it is the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping).

Mr. Tipping: Will the Minister remind the House that on the day after the Budget it is normal practice for the Secretary of State for Social Security to make an announcement? By my reckoning, that day of judgment will be 27 November. My hon. Friends may be relaxed and mild now—the Minister heard my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—but he should reflect on that and make it a red letter day in his diary.

Mr. Evans: I do not think that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) could be so described this morning: he made a powerful speech. I hear what the hon. Member for Sherwood says, and I have made it clear that an announcement will be made shortly. [HON. MEMBERS: "When is shortly?"] That means shortly shortly, within reasonable shortness. Other than that I cannot qualify shortly in a helpful way, and beyond that I cannot and will not go.

Mr. Hardy: A long time ago, when a better Government were in office, I brought to the House's attention the case of a constituent who was suffering from those diseases. He depended on oxygen and could not leave his house because he had to be by the side of a large oxygen cylinder. I asked the then Government to allow portable oxygen cylinders to be provided by the national health service. They agreed, and within an astonishingly short time people such as my constituent were able to go to the local club, go for a walk to see their son's allotment and accompany their wives to the local shop, because they could carry a portable cylinder and were free. They were liberated by a caring Government who acted with expedition, whereas this lot have been sitting on this matter for years.

Mr. Clapham: rose—

Mr. Evans: I think that I am obliged to answer the hon. Gentleman's question first. I hear the point that he makes. It concerns a wider issue, but I understand why he makes it.

Mr. Clapham: Will the announcement that is likely to be made in the near future be made orally to the House, and not in the form of a written answer to a question?

Mr. Evans: I cannot answer that, but I can assure the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone that it will be made in whatever is the appropriate conventional fashion.

I shall deal with the specific points that hon. Members have raised, because it is important that I go through them one by one. The hon. Member for Sherwood referred to my parliamentary answer on the cost, which will be £20 million plus £5 million for administration. I appreciate the points made about property sales and the sums that, it is said, should be paid back to the mining communities. For nearly 200 years, there has been a consolidated fund. Hon. Members must appreciate that, whatever their merits, the proposals involve a public expenditure commitment, which must be accounted for in the usual way.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), who seemed in one breath to be satisfied with the largeness of the social security budget, said that if he were in office he would apply it more appropriately. He must explain what allowance would be made if that were done.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) asked me several specific questions about matters that go beyond the area that we are discussing today. I warn him that some of his observations about retrospection go further than what any Government have done in the past in connection with this scheme. I shall read his speech carefully in Hansard, and I shall do my best to answer his questions. I may be able to answer them more fully at the time of the announcement. I have noted the points that he made, and I shall examine them carefully.

Mr. William O'Brien: I prefaced my remarks by saying that I thought that the Minister would not be able to answer my questions, but that it would be helpful if he could answer them in writing. I am concerned about what the Minister just said about retrospection going beyond what we could expect. Does he accept that the regulations are deeply flawed? They require that dust retention should show up on the X-ray, but post-mortems reveal a vast discrepancy in that area. In my opinion, retrospection is understandable and fair, and I hope that the Minister will give it fair consideration.

Mr. Evans: As I understand it, the scientific evidence presented by IIAC is correct. The difficulty with the X-ray test is that what shows up on the X-ray depends in part on the carbon content of coal. Anthracite and best Welsh steam-coal produce more visible signs in X-rays than do other types of coal. That is the scientific argument presented by IIAC, and, as I said, we accept that.
The difficulty with retrospection—I put this in general terms—is the way in which the scheme has operated since 1946. Scientific knowledge develops. The purpose of IIAC is to monitor the scientific argument as it develops and extends. Governments have traditionally taken the view that when the scientific evidence, as assessed and reported on by IIAC, meets the statutory test of the scheme—which has been in place since 1946—the change is made for future cases. That happened in 1993 in respect of this issue.
I put in a word of caution, because the hon. Member for Normanton, for understandable reasons, is trying to press me to go further than any Government have gone before. I shall consider the point, and I shall try to reply to him as best as I can immediately, and subsequently when the announcement is made.

Mr. McLeish: I wish to reinforce the point. Between 1993 and now, a significant number of cases have come


before the Department. Will the Minister reassure me that if the changes are accepted and implemented, the case load from 1993 to 1996 will be eligible for reconsideration in an attempt retrospectively to bring justice to those people?

Mr. Evans: That would involve further expense, over and above the figures that we quoted earlier. I shall consider all matters, including that one, before the announcement is made. However, the scheme has not traditionally been operated in that way. The purpose of IIAC is to advise the Government and Parliament on the evolving state of the scientific evidence. The point at which, in IIAC's judgment, the two criteria have been met is the point at which, traditionally, we respond to IIAC.

Mr. McLeish: I am grateful for the candidness of the Minister's responses. Would he be amenable to further representations being made in the next few days about the question of retrospection? It is important to my hon. Friends. I merely ask the Minister to acknowledge its importance, and to tell us whether he would be happy to obtain further evidence before the announcement is made—shortly, or shortly shortly.

Mr. Evans: I hope that "shortly" means fairly shortly. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is, of course, yes. I hope that there was no misunderstanding in the summer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone on 23 July, inviting him to meet Ministers with members of the miners' group. That meeting has not taken place for some reason, but I shall be delighted to meet any members of the group.

Mr. Clapham: We want to see the Minister.

Mr. Evans: When people say that to me, I know full well that it will happen. Anyway, if any hon. Members wish to make further representations, I shall be delighted to listen.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I raised the question of retrospection because a letter that I received suggested that there was to be no retrospection. Is the Minister now opening the door to discussion about the matter? In the example that I gave, someone died of the disease.

Mr. Evans: The fact that I am always prepared to listen to an argument should not lead to the supposition that I necessarily accede to that argument. As I made clear to the hon. Member for Normanton, what is being demanded goes further than any Government have traditionally gone under this scheme. Nevertheless, if anyone wants to put a particular case to me, I am prepared to listen to it carefully. I will have it assessed carefully, and I will have it costed carefully. I give this warning, however: although I am prepared to listen, we are being asked to go much further than the scheme has previously gone.
I should make it clear to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North that there is an issue of administration. I was asked specifically how long the arrangements would take to implement were we to make such an announcement. The 1993 scheme took five and a half months to implement, and serious questions of administration are involved in any such implementation; but the Government are attending to all matters.
I shall be kinder to the hon. Member for Bolsover than he was to me. IIAC is, of course, a quango, but I think that even the hon. Gentleman will agree that, if there is such a thing as a quango, it is the best of all possible quangos. It is an expert body: it contains medical experts of the highest repute, as well as representatives of both the TUC and the CBI.
The hon. Member for Sherwood mentioned the Nottingham Evening Post interview with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I regret to say that that newspaper read rather more into off-the-cuff remarks than was justified, although I appreciate that the interview excited considerable interest in Nottinghamshire at the time.
Criticisms have been made of the 1993 scheme, quite apart from those addressed by IIAC. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) seemed to be saying that in 1993 we had somehow frustrated everyone's intentions by devising a scheme that was tighter than the one for which they were campaigning. As I understand the position, we simply implemented what IIAC then recommended.
Having—I hope—dealt with most of the points that have been made, I will not reintroduce a discussion with the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on reduced earnings allowance, or on any of the other matters that she mentioned. The debate focuses, very properly, on a particular matter.

Mrs. Clwyd: It is an important issue.

Mr. Evans: I know that it is important, but it is separate and distinct from what we have been discussing today.
It is important to define the role of IIAC, and the conditions that must be satisfied before a disease may be prescribed. That will explain why the terms of the prescription of chronic bronchitis and emphysema were drawn up in the way that they were in 1993, why the council reviewed the criteria this year and why it reached the conclusions and made the recommendations contained in its report.
No doubt everyone will be encouraged by the fact that the opinions expressed in both the 1992 and the 1996 IIAC reports on the subject were unanimous: there was agreement among all representatives on the body, including the medical experts.
Industrial injuries disablement benefit is payable for disablement resulting from industrial accidents and from certain diseases that are prescribed. As I said earlier, the legal basis for prescription has remained unchanged since the scheme was introduced in its modern form in 1946—although I appreciate that that reformed the 1897 scheme. The statutory provision is contained in section 108 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, which states:
A disease or injury may be prescribed in relation to any employed earners if the Secretary of State is satisfied that—
(a) it ought to be treated, having regard to its causes and incidence and any other relevant considerations, as a risk of their occupations and not as a risk common to all persons: and
(b) it is such that, in the absence of special circumstances, the attribution of particular cases to the nature of the employment can be established or presumed with reasonable certainty.

Mr. William O'Brien: When my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Sir G. Lofthouse)—now Deputy Speaker—introduced his Bill, he had in mind the regulations to which the Minister referred. Although the Bill was accepted, my hon. Friend's experience in the mining industry—which was included in it—was not taken into consideration by the review body. We are asking for the changes to be implemented without further delay, and for other matters that we have mentioned today to be taken into account. I hope that the Minister will consider all the facts that have been presented, because further changes must be made.

Mr. Evans: I hear that argument, and will give careful consideration to what it involves.
The statutory test is important. It is of fairly long standing, having existed throughout my lifetime. It has worked so far, although I appreciate that whether it is too strict, and whether it is drafted in quite the right way, are matters of argument.
This is a slightly unusual scheme. It is a compensation scheme, not a benefit scheme. It is distinct from, for instance, the arrangements for disability and incapacity benefits. It is a scheme of compensation—in the tradition of workmen's compensation that goes back to 1897—which is not based on proof of fault: it is a tax-free, no-fault compensation scheme. Therefore, it requires criteria that are clear and well established: no doubt that is why they have remained in their present state for a long time.

Mr. Clapham: The payment of compensation is normally connected with the fact that someone has been subjected to an unnecessary risk. Here we are talking about the loss of a faculty, either mental or physical, following an injury sustained at work. The benefit that is payable from the scheme is for that loss of faculty, and

will therefore continue to be paid because the loss of faculty will remain until the end of the person's life. That is rather different from a compensation payment.

Mr. Evans: Traditionally, that is not so. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's analysis is correct, although I suspect that at the end of the day it does not matter.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, between 1897 and 1946, when a Labour Government reformed the scheme, people had an option, although not a very comfortable one. Either they accepted no-fault payments under the scheme's predecessor, or they sued at common law and had to prove negligence or breach of statutory duty, which was difficult and expensive. At its inception, the scheme was perceived as an alternative to suing at law. When the 1946 reforms came in, instead of either/or it became both.

Mr. Skinner: Under a Labour Government.

Mr. Evans: I know what the hon. Gentleman says. I accept that the scheme has remained in that state since 1946 and of course it was a Labour Government who imposed it, but the point is that, in its modern form, the scheme remains one of statutory compensation and is distinct from benefits. We have been talking loosely in terms of benefits, but the scheme is not like the welfare benefits generally administered by my Department, but a form of compensation for a type of injury.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Evans: I have about half a second. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Skinner: Yesterday in the handgun debate, as a result of representations about money, the Secretary of State for the Home Department said that he would consider finding extra money to resolve the gun lobby arguments. Will the Minister give the same guarantee on this matter when he has considered all the questions that have been asked by my hon. Friends?

Mr. Evans: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We must now move to the next debate.

St Peter and St. James's Hospice

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I welcome the opportunity to raise this issue in the debate, which comes, by good chance, this morning. First, I will remind the House about some characteristics of the hospice movement, although I doubt whether any Members are unaware of them.
Through its in-patient facilities, the hospice movement provides specialist care for people in advanced stages of serious illness. Through day care, it provides opportunities for expert help with symptom control, for counselling and for other therapies, as well as mental and physical refreshment for patients living at home and for their carers. Home care is provided by qualified hospice staff to support community nursing services, to assist patients and carers in daily nursing routines and regular assessment, and to maintain an open door to in-patient respite care.
I mention all those services because they are less well known than the major and best known hospice service, which is in the treatment and care of people whose condition cannot be cured, particularly to reduce, if not eliminate, patient discomfort and to improve patients' quality of life. Specialists are there to allay fear, to prescribe possible treatment and to provide holistic support to improve the quality of life.
Time never stands still and the needs of people suffering terminal illness will always become greater and require increasing support. That is the function of marvellous hospices such as St. Peter and St. James's home and hospice at Wivelsfield Green in my constituency. The Minister's colleague, Baroness Cumberlege, who visited the hospice recently, can vouch for the impressive quality of its work. I must say immediately, however, that the benefit from the hospice's care and service covers adjacent constituencies as well as my own and is almost equally provided to patients from East Sussex and West Sussex, which causes part of the funding problem.
Hospice funding does not depend entirely on health authorities. Like other hospices, St. Peter and St. James's depends to a large extent on charitable donations. It is only through such generous public support that: the hospice survives and can continue to give vital assistance so marvellously. It devotes much energy and innovation to fund-raising activities and local people are continually wonderfully generous, but health authorities also must contribute from the funds provided to them by Government to do so.
The Minister will know—indeed, his colleague has told me—that until last year Government funding was specific and had risen from £8 million in 1991 to £48 million in 1994–95, which is to be welcomed. Since then, funding has been built into health authorities' general allocations, with an aim to meet hospice needs on a 50:50 basis. The Department of Health guidance states specifically that removal of separate identification from funding for specialist palliative care—for hospices—should not be viewed in any way as representing a reduction in priority for that sector. That was confirmed by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health in his letter to me on 14 August.
The East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authority's contract with St. Peter and St. James's is for three years—its last year is next year—at £50,942 per year. I am told

that that equals only about one third of the cost of in-patient services alone. No extra funding is provided for day care or for home care services, either from the authority or from local social services. It appears that no more funds are available for this wonderful hospice while a new hospice is being developed in Brighton and Hove. It is invidious to choose between the two. Both need better support.
The picture is even bleaker with regard to funding from West Sussex. Patients from West Sussex, just across the nearby county border, represent approximately 50 per cent. of the hospice's work, but the authority provides only £10,550 per annum—an invidiously small remuneration for the wonderful services provided to many people for whom it is responsible. It is not prepared to pay for any day care services, thus forcing patients requiring those services from St. Peter and St. James's to pay for them themselves.
The net income from both East Sussex and West Sussex health authorities of just about £60,000 leaves St. Peter and St. James's with the need to raise between £400,000 and £500,000 each year. That is far removed from the 50:50 funding guideline goal and shows a dramatic reduction in priority for palliative care funding, contrary to the Government's guidelines.
I will give one dramatic illustration. Recently, an East Sussex AIDS patient in a West Sussex hospital was moved to St. Peter and St. James's with the promise of necessary funding to come with him. The money never appeared. The hospice became the pig in the middle between health authorities and social services. Eventually, money was agreed only under threat of having to move the patient elsewhere and receiving negative publicity for that action. Sadly, the money was paid only after the patient had died.
That was a human tragedy. The hospice charges for that AIDS patient are approximately one third of the cost elsewhere and the hospice's services for such a patient are infinitely better—indeed, unmatched. Professional and dedicated people are trying to do their best for a desperately ill and dying patient and for many others like him, but they are not being provided with the basic funds to do so. That is one illustration of an omnipresent problem which has threatened St. Peter and St. James's literally with closure, so desperate is its financial position. But for one generous and substantial donation out of the blue last week, the hospice would probably have been closing as we pursue the debate.
What do I ask my good and honourable friend the Minister to do? First, I ask him to issue new hospice funding guidelines to health authorities to ensure that proper funding is provided in at least the same proportions as previously provided under the specific ring-fenced money provisions of yesteryear. Secondly, he must ensure that health authorities move speedily—I stress speedily—to a 50:50 funding proportion, to establish a deadline for them to do so and to fund them accordingly. Thirdly, he should make certain that health authorities provide fair funding to cover the needs of patients from their region and do not hide behind contracts that have been overtaken by increasing needs, nor rely on the good will of people dedicated to provide those services while denying them the funds to do so, as the West Sussex health authority is doing. Fourthly, some better mechanism must be established for decision-making on funding matters between health authorities and social services to avoid


in-fighting such as that recently faced by the St. Peter and St. James's AIDS patient. Fifthly, the Minister should make sure that the principles of the patients charter apply, so that patients go where they can get the services that they need and the funds go with them. Sixthly, and finally, my hon. Friend should see what can be done to provide assistance to hospices to help them to deal with health authorities and social services on a more equal basis in their contractual and financial dealings.
The House will realise that people in the advanced stages of illness, and often apparently approaching death, need special help. Hospices such as St. Peter and St. James's uniquely provide with care and dedication the specialist services required. They continue to deserve public support, and I am sure that they will continue to get it. But they also deserve better support from Government-funded bodies such as health authorities and social services departments. I call upon my friend the Minister to give that help.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), and I congratulate him on securing time for a debate on the funding of St. Peter and St. James's hospice. I have no doubt that it is an extremely important issue.
I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. He feels that the hospice provides a valued service for the people of Lewes and Haywards Heath in East Sussex, and I understand any concern that he has for its future.
Before I respond to my hon. Friend's concerns about funding, I should like to express sadness at the untimely although not entirely unexpected death of Julian Wellesley, chairman of the East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authority. He was a well respected man, with a successful career in finance and commerce. He devoted considerable time and energy to the health service, and was appointed to the position of health authority chairman in 1990. He proved to be an outstanding chairman, leading his authority with great style and skill, and his name will live on in the many improvements to local health services that he pushed through.

Mr. Rathbone: I should like to add my support for my hon. Friend's words. I knew Julian Wellesley for many years before I came to the House. He started his work in the health service on the board of Eastbourne general hospital. He was then appointed chairman of Eastbourne health authority and most recently he was a marvellous chairman of East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authority. He engineered the bringing together of the local health authorities and community care providers under one wing. I believe that my hon. Friend's words are justified.

Mr. Horam: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
I know something about St. Peter and St. James's home and hospice from my colleague, Lady Cumberlege, who visited the premises on 20 August, as my hon. Friend said. She was very impressed by what she saw. The charity's efforts are obviously much appreciated by patients and the local community.
St. Peter and St. James's home was built 20 years ago to provide residential care for severely disabled people and elderly people. It branched into hospice care in the early 1990s. The hospice comprises six in-patient beds and a new day centre. It also provides home support services for patients in the community.
St. Peter and St. James's is one of a number of hospices in Sussex. Like other voluntary hospices, it is funded from charitable sources, and also by the health authorities. I will have more to say about health authority funding of hospices, which ultimately comes from the taxpayer, of course, but first I should like to pay tribute to the excellent work done by charities up and down the country in raising many millions of pounds every year for hospice care. None of us is under any illusion about how difficult it can be to raise the sums required, and we are extremely grateful for the considerable unpaid time and effort so generously given by so many people.
I should make it absolutely clear that our commitment to palliative care is undiminished. I also remind the House that the United Kingdom is a recognised world leader in the care of the terminally ill. Significant advances have been made in pain and symptom control and in improving the overall quality of life for patients with cancer and other life-threatening illnesses. The aim of our policies is to ensure that the benefits of those improvements in treatment and care are available to all patients, wherever they may live.
The spectrum of palliative care provision and support required to meet patients' and carers' needs continues throughout the patient's illness and into the carer's bereavement. It ranges from the promotion of physical and social well-being to highly specialist palliative care involving physical, psychological, social and spiritual support. It is provided in both community and in-patient settings. It will vary according to the stage of illness, and may be required from the time of diagnosis.
To provide such services, the Government's support for hospice and specialist palliative care services has, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, increased sixfold between 1990 and 1994. In 1994, that funding reached nearly £48 million. As of January this year, there were 171 hospices operating in England, with a total of 2,599 beds, 308 home care teams, 89 hospital support teams and 191 day hospices. Some of those are part of larger national voluntary bodies, but most are locally based individual charities such as the St. Peter and St. James's hospice. As the House will appreciate, the care of the terminally ill nationally is a large undertaking, which has grown enormously in the past 10 years.
As my hon. Friend said, since 1994, funding for specialist palliative care has been built into health authorities' allocations and has not been ring-fenced as it originally was. My hon. Friend is concerned that that practice has diminished support. I can tell him that my Department has a good working relationship with the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services. We rely on that organisation to identify local problems. The council is co-ordinating a survey of all health authorities and is interviewing those responsible for palliative care. The picture is incomplete because the survey is expected to be published early next year, but the evidence so far is that health authorities are at least maintaining—I emphasise that word—their palliative care funding levels.


The change in the funding approach was designed to ensure that health authorities planned for palliative care in the same way as they planned for other health services. Health authorities are free to negotiate with individual providers the level and form of support required to meet the palliative care needs of their population. That flexibility in the use of funding has enabled the palliative approach to become more widely adopted in all settings, including hospices, hospitals, nursing homes and the patient's own home.
It is, of course, essential that hospices and health authorities work in partnership when drawing up and developing local strategies for palliative care. Agreement between them must be based on the assessed health needs of the resident population and should take into account local priorities, available resources and existing patterns of services. That should allow resources to be used effectively and avoid undue duplication.
It is also important for health authorities to ensure that new developments do not divert resources from established palliative care units if they are delivering high quality care. That fact needs to be emphasised in the context of today's debate as I know that St. Peter and St. James's is a valued as well as an established palliative care unit. I am sure that that point will not be lost on the health authorities. Indeed, if there was any danger of that, we re-emphasised that point as recently as 15 October 1995 in guidance to all health authorities.
East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authority and West Sussex health authority are responsible for contracting for palliative care services in Sussex and the area served by the St. Peter and St. James's hospice. While I understand the wish of that hospice and those connected with it to secure as much funding as possible from their health authorities, it is for the two Sussex health authorities, as purchasers of health care for their residents, to determine what level of resources to devote to palliative care, and which particular providers to use.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes referred to the level of support being provided and mentioned a total contribution of approximately £60,000 from the two health authorities to the more than £400,000 required to maintain the hospice. Those are large sums of money for the authorities, but I readily agree that they are small in relation to the total sum required. My hon. Friend was correct to say that approximately 30 per cent. of the costs of patients from East Sussex are being matched by funds from their health authority, and that the percentage provided by the West Sussex authority to maintain patients from its area is even smaller—perhaps as low as 10 per cent.

Mr. Rathbone: I remind the Minister that those figures apply only to funding for in-patient services and not for other services.

Mr. Horam: I accept that, but those are the amounts being provided by the two health authorities.
The matter of what resources are available to the health authorities is a separate issue. As a Member of Parliament representing a Sussex constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes will be aware of the difficulties faced by the West Sussex and the East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authorities. This year, the disparity between the target and actual amounts that the East Sussex health

authority should receive is more than £18 million, while for West Sussex the amount is more than £15 million. Those disparities are among the worst in the country. My hon. Friend will be aware that the authorities are some distance from the target amount of funding that they should receive.
My hon. Friend will also be aware that we are endeavouring to diminish the disparity between the ideal and actual amounts over time. Therefore, this year the two authorities received increases that were very much higher than inflation. They can also expect increases very much above inflation in future years. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware of the commitment made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Conservative party conference to real-term increases in the health budget, which will be reflected in the amount of money going to health authorities.
At this time of year, health authorities do not know how much money they will receive next year, but they will know fairly soon. I hope that the authorities will appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes in this debate and bear in mind the situation facing St. Peter and St. James's hospice when they consider the disposition of their resources, which have been increased in real terms. I hope that they will consider the situation very carefully when they know where they stand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes made an important point about the need for co-operation between the two health authorities. It is important that the problem does not slip between the fingers of both authorities as they are both taking their own point of view and not co-operating with one another. I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that there is correspondence between the two authorities on the matter. As he knows, there is also correspondence outstanding between the hospice and the West Sussex health authority. So the problem is being dealt with. My hon. Friend also raised the important issue of ascertaining the exact financial position. I agree that that must happen soon, and I hope that the two authorities will talk with the hospice to deal with the problem.
I hope that my reply has reassured my hon. Friend that I should like the problems to be dealt with urgently by the health authorities, after they are made aware of the resources that will be available to them in the next financial year.

Mr. Rathbone: A couple of questions arise from the Minister's reply—which I much appreciated. He has certainly reassured me about what he would like to see happen, but it does not reassure me about the behaviour of the authorities. There have been long-drawn-out conversations between the East Sussex, Brighton and Hove authority and the West Sussex authority, which have reached a complete impasse. Based on my correspondence with the authorities, they have shown no sign in the past year of overcoming that impasse. Any additional guidelines that the Minister can provide would help. Any assistance that he can give to hospices, so that they can be on a more equal footing in their contractual arrangements, would also be appreciated.
The Minister mentioned the need to close the funding gap for the two authorities to bring them up to the national norm. Therefore—I did not anticipate that the debate


would reach this conclusion—the problems of the St. Peter and St. James's hospice rest on the shoulders of the Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that interventions should be used to intervene in the debate and not to make a second speech.

Mr. Rathbone: I agree absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I stand admonished by your ruling. I was seeking clarification from the Minister on two extremely important points. I hope that he has taken them on board. He still has a moment in which to apply his mind to them.

Mr. Horam: First, I realise that the problem has been a matter of debate between the two authorities. As a result of the points made by my hon. Friend in this debate, and particularly because of the immediacy of the financial problems faced by the hospice, I shall ask the authorities to re-examine the matter, in conjunction with the hospice, to discover the exact financial problems.
Secondly, I can reassure my hon. Friend that we realise the funding problems faced by the authorities. We hope that there will be further progress in narrowing the gap between the authorities' current position and the norm in the announcement about health authority funding for the next financial year. That will mean increased real resources for the two health authorities to tackle the problem and will allow them to give the problem the priority that they would wish to accord it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and the Minister are in the Chamber, we can begin the next debate early.

Hillingdon Hospital (Cleaners' Dispute)

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am pleased that we have an extra three minutes for the debate, because it is about a matter of great importance. I should say that I have corresponded with the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) on the matter, and I am glad that he is in the Chamber today. In accordance with previous rulings from Madam Speaker, I sent him a note last night to confirm that I would be speaking in the debate.
I should also say that I am a member of Unison, which is the union involved in the dispute. I am a former official of Unison, and was supported by it in the most recent general election. I am very proud to be a member of Unison and to be involved with it.
The dispute has been going on for just over a year. A group of women and one man, who are cleaners at the Hillingdon hospital, have been trying to get back their jobs. They have stood outside the hospital in foul, wet weather and in fine, dry weather, suffering harassment, abuse and abominable behaviour by passers-by. They have also suffered at the hands of the obdurate management of a very large, wealthy and powerful company, known as Pall Mall Services.
The background to the dispute is that, in October 1994, Pall Mall, Healthcare Support Services won a contract to provide cleaning services at the Hillingdon hospital. It sent all staff a letter, on 3 October 1994, which stated:
Re: Transfer Of Contract—Initial Healthcare Services to Pall Mall Healthcare—Hillingdon Hospital, 17.10.94.
We are delighted to have won the contract to provide support services at Hillingdon Hospital and are pleased to confirm, following our presentation and individual meeting, your transfer from Initial Healthcare Services to Pall Mall Healthcare on 17th October 1994.
We will shortly be completing a contract of employment for you, but as you are transferring under the Transfer of Undertaking Regulations, your terms and conditions will remain the same.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for your help in making the transfer as smooth as possible and look forward to a successful working partnership as part of the Pall Mall team.
Those were high hopes indeed.
One year later, a number of staff received a letter saying:
We wrote to you on 30th June 1995 giving you notice that your contract of employment would terminate on 30th September 1995 and confirming that a new contract of employment was on offer from 1st October. We wrote to you again on 29th August once again to offer you the opportunity to accept the new contract of employment.
We are sorry that you have chosen not to accept our offers of a new contract and confirm that accordingly your contract of employment terminated with effect from Saturday 30th September 1995.
If you wish to accept our offer it remains available for acceptance at the moment but will expire without further notice when we have no further vacancies.
There is an entire story between those two letters. Pall Mall took over the cleaning of Hillingdon hospital and, in accordance with the law, maintained the staff under the conditions set out in the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees) Regulations 1981, and confirmed in writing that they would continue to be paid properly. Yet a very short time into the contract, Pall Mall


did what it has tried to do in a number of hospitals—indeed, unfortunately, contract cleaners across the national health service too often try to do it—by introducing new pay and conditions, abolishing London weighting and forcing wage cuts of between £25 and £35 a week on people who were already receiving very low wages. The women concerned quite rightly said that they were not prepared to sign the new contracts of employment. They had been taken on in good faith by Pall Mall and had good faith in the company. Pall Mall broke that faith and tried to force the women to accept lower wages and worse working conditions, which is absolutely disgraceful.
Accordingly, Pall Mall took the opportunity to dismiss the cleaners. I have a list of some comparisons between the former terms and conditions and the new ones which shows, for example, that London weighting is no longer applicable, holidays are reduced, sick pay is likely to be reduced and basic wages are lowered. Indeed, the whole gamut of working conditions has been made considerably worse for the women employed at the hospital.
We must ask what is the Pall Mall group and why is it behaving in such a way. It is a very large organisation; it employs more than 10,000 people. Its turnover is more than £70 million a year. Its profits are more than £2 million a year. In 1994, it recorded a profit of £2.2 million, yet the giant organisation is built on sweat, low wages, poor working conditions and aggressive management techniques. The average pay of those in Pall Mall employment is not much more than £5,000 a year. Six Pall Mall directors pay themselves more than £300,000 a year. In other words, they consider themselves more valuable than 63 cleaners. That is the sort of organisation with which we are dealing.
Although the company was forced in 1994 to accept the TUPE regulations, it has not tried to adhere to them. Indeed, it has constantly harassed and lobbied the Government in its efforts to amend or renegotiate its way out of them because, when it wins a contract to take over cleaning in a hospital or any other place, it does not like to have to honour existing terms and conditions or take on the existing staff. It is not a model employer by any means. It has been found against in disputes on a number of occasions—most prominently and recently in a case of persistent sexual harassment against one woman employee, for which it had to pay out £10,000.
The purpose of today's debate is to bring to the attention of the House and—I hope—a much wider public what is going on in Hillingdon and many other hospitals. People who work for the NHS do so because they believe in it; they believe in universal health care. Some of the women at Hillingdon hospital have given 30 years' service to cleaning it. People might ask what is a cleaner. If one wants an efficient hospital that is properly run and managed, one needs managers, doctors, nurses and technicians, but one also needs catering staff, cleaners and maintenance workers. One needs people who are properly employed and treated in order to run a hospital.
The women concerned have given 30 years to ensuring that the hospital is a decent, clean and safe place to work. The huge, very profitable organisation of Pall Mall came along and took over the contract, probably realising fully that the price that it had offered for the takeover was unsustainable and that it would therefore cut the women's wages. In other words, it conned people in order to get the contract in the first place. It is abominable that the

women were thrown out of their jobs as a result of the way in which Pall Mall behaved and are campaigning for their reinstatement. They are strongly supported by my union in the campaign.

Sir Michael Shersby: As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, Hillingdon hospital is in my constituency. I am sure that he knows that about 200 of the 230 members of staff accepted the conditions offered by Pall Mall Services. Those who did not have been engaged in the industrial action to which he has referred, although, happily that has not had an impact on the service provided by the hospital to patients. The hospital's trust has, with my full support and in response to my urging, attempted to bring both sides of the dispute together and to reach a settlement. Earlier in the year, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service brokered an agreement, which I believe was recommended by Unison but rejected by the staff concerned. It appears that the next step in the saga will be for the matter to go before an industrial tribunal. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the agreement that Unison tried to broker and why it was rejected? He has told the House that he is a member of Unison and it may be valuable for him to comment.

Mr. Corbyn: I would have been happier if the hon. Gentleman had said that he supported the women's predicament and recognised the injustice that they feel. People do not reject offers of jobs without having very strong reasons for doing so. I think that they were absolutely entitled to reject the offer. The women have been wrongfully dismissed by Pall Mall and, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, their case is to be taken to a tribunal.

Sir Michael Shersby: I was present at the hospital's annual general meeting and listened to the views expressed by the staff who were not offered new contracts under Unison. I have had further meetings with the hospital management as a result. One of the reasons why I am present is to tell the House that. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be assured of my concern.

Mr. Corbyn: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman's comments do not reassure me at all. He has said that he has met the hospital management and other staff who, for their own reasons, fears or whatever else, accepted new contracts and conditions, but has not said whether he supports the women who have been thrown out of their jobs by the wealthy Pall Mall company. Does he think that it is right that women cleaners should work for less than £3 an hour?

Sir Michael Shersby: I made it clear that I listened to the staff who had lost their jobs as a result of the events that the hon. Gentleman has described. It was as a result of listening to them that I immediately asked for further meetings with the hospital staff in an effort to bring to an end the regrettable dispute. There is no lack of sympathy or understanding on my part with the staff concerned.

Mr. Corbyn: I am glad that that is so. Given that, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will give his support to the women who have been standing outside the hospital for a year trying to get their jobs back and to ensure that all cleaners in all hospitals are paid a decent living wage. He


and I would not like to work for, or try to live on, £3 an hour; we probably could not. Why should they or anybody else have to do so? Ancillary staff are treated disgracefully in the health service anyway, but those employed by contractors are considerably worse off. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the absolute justice of the women's case and the wide support that they enjoy in the local community, from my trade union, Unison, and from a number of other unions.
People have had enough of this cavalier, anti-trade union approach to management which says that it does not matter how low the wages are provided that somebody can be found to do the job. In a time of high unemployment, it is possible to get people to do jobs for disgracefully low wages. That does not make such practices right, happy or just. I want to draw attention to the plight of the workers at Hillingdon hospital.
The Minister has a trade union background, even though he turned his back on it some years ago. Perhaps he can tell us why the national health service internal market deliberately encourages contractors to cut costs, to worsen conditions and to treat contract workers in that way. We would be far better off if we ended the principle of the internal market and instead started treating all national health service staff as crucial parts of a team that ensures that we have good-quality hospitals and working conditions.
The Minister must recognise that all is not well in this dispute any more than all is well in the current dispute in Northern Ireland. He should intervene to ensure that Pall Mall takes the staff back and employs them under conditions no less favourable than those that they were given in writing when the contract was taken over in 1994.
We should go a stage further than that. When contracts come up for renewal, we should end the principle of contracting out cleaning services and take staff directly into national health service employment so that they can be assured of good-quality working conditions and training.
There are problems and dangers for us all in the employment of contract workers. There have been many contract failures in the national health service, with cleaning being inadequately or badly done, staff being badly trained or untrained and incoming staff not being given health checks. Many issues need to be addressed.
The purpose of the debate is to draw attention to what has happened at Hillingdon hospital and the way in which those women have been treated. The wider community, particularly the Government, must intervene to stop the abuse of power by Pall Mall and the Pontius Pilate attitude of the hospital trust, replicated by the Department of Health, which is saying, "It is nothing to do with us. It is all a matter for the market."
Imagine the situation of people whose jobs have been sold to another employer over their heads and who are told a few months later, "Sorry. We did not really mean the promises that we gave you. We did not really mean to give you the undertakings that we gave six months ago. That was all window dressing to get the contract. Would you kindly accept a cut in wages, worse working conditions and less holiday pay? Would you kindly accept less enhanced pay for overtime, night time and weekend

working? In other words, would you kindly do whatever we want you to do?" What would any of us do if faced with such a situation?
I do not blame those women for what they did. I have the deepest admiration and support for them, as, I believe, do many other people in hospitals, even those who felt that they had no alternative but to accept the unbridled power of the marketplace which forces them into worse working conditions.
My plea is for the Government to intervene to ensure that everybody working in a national health service institution enjoys conditions at least as good as nationally negotiated and agreed NHS conditions. The Minister must recognise that this obscenity can be put right only when proper national conditions are applicable to all workers.
The women are fighting a battle of enormous principle that will go down in history as such, akin to the current dispute at the Liverpool docks and other episodes in the great history of trade union struggles in this country when workers have stood up and said that they are not prepared to allow employers to ride roughshod over them and destroy a lifetime's gains in working conditions. Pall Mall should have some respect for 30 years' service in the NHS rather than casting those women out on the stones outside in the freezing air to campaign for their reinstatement.
I am proud to be associated with the trade union that supports those members. I very much hope that, soon, those women will be back in work in that hospital, able to continue the dedicated service that they have given to the national health service, rather than suffering disgraceful treatment at the hands of Pall Mall. We need to get a grip on the power of cleaning companies and their awful treatment of so many of their staff. Will the Minister explain why he has apparently been unable for so long to do anything and what he will do to ensure justice for these women?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): It is most regrettable that the dispute has remained unresolved for more than a year. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) has made extreme efforts, which he has mentioned during the debate, to bring it to a resolution. However, it has not been resolved.
I sympathise with the predicament of those involved, but the parties to the dispute are a private company and a number of cleaning workers who parted with that company last year. I stress that the workers were not national health service employees at the time. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) may have given the contrary impression. Many of them had not been employees in the national health service for more than six years. Neither the national health service managers at Hillingdon nor I have any jurisdiction over the matter. Furthermore, given that industrial tribunal proceedings are now in progress, with the aggrieved workers claiming unfair dismissal by Pall Mall, we should be particularly careful to avoid any comment that might prejudice the case.
I must make one other point clear from the outset. The hospital has at all times during the dispute continued to provide its customary excellent service to patients. At no time has the quality of cleaning at the hospital been compromised and the contractor has continued to fulfil all


its contractual obligations at the hospital. Patients, their relatives and friends and the residents of Hillingdon can be assured of the quality of health care provided by the hospital. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge will want to endorse that, particularly considering last week's debate on another matter.
Before discussing the circumstances of the dispute at Hillingdon, I should like to comment generally on the Government's policy on market testing—an issue that the hon. Member for Islington, North raised—particularly as it relates to non-core NHS services. By testing services through competition, we seek to ensure that the support services provided to national health service hospitals are the best available and provide the best value for money. Whether a support service is provided by the public or private sector depends solely on who best satisfies the criteria of quality and value.
As a result of the market testing initiative, the national health service has saved more than £1 billion since 1983. That means that £1 billion for investment in patient care has been made available. Apart from the cost savings achieved, market testing has also led to greater innovation, better specification of service needs and improved management, releasing resources from non-core support services and making them available for the core business of improving health and patient care, which is what the national health service is all about.
We estimate that the service contracts currently in place in the national health service are achieving an annual saving of between £100 million and £150 million. Again, that is money for use in direct patient care.

Mr. Corbyn: The Minister is keen to quote savings of between £100 million and £150 million on NHS contracts. Does he recognise that that saving comes straight out of the pockets of the lowest-paid people in the national health service, creating more poverty, worse working conditions and worse living conditions for many people? Is he proud of that?

Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The service improvement has come from a reconfiguration of services and greater efficiency by the providers. There has been no loss of quality in the service and, often, pay has not been reduced. The hon. Gentleman mentioned pay at Hillingdon. The rate for cleaners there is £3.69 an hour—one of the best in the area according to the Uxbridge and Hayes job centres. General airport cleaners at Heathrow—broadly comparable with Hillingdon staff—earn £3.50 an hour. The pay conditions implemented by Pall Mall at Hillingdon are no worse than is general for the area. Not only that, the hon. Gentleman failed to mention that, when the changes in the TUPE arrangements were negotiated, the workers were offered compensation of between £400 and £1,000. The hon. Gentleman cannot, therefore, say that the provider has behaved badly in this case.

Mr. Corbyn: I am glad that the Minister has given way on that point. He failed to say that the overtime and weekend rates were cut as a result of the change. Does he recognise—it is important that he does—that Pall Mall had a contractual agreement with the cleaners which it unilaterally broke in 1995? That is the nub of the argument. The company gave a solemn undertaking in October 1994 that the staff would be employed, under

TUPE, on existing conditions of service. It broke that undertaking and subsequently dismissed the women from their jobs.

Mr. Horam: If the hon. Gentleman is reasonable, he will recognise—

Mr. Corbyn: I am.

Mr. Horam: I am glad to hear it. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the changes were a result of renegotiation—for which compensation was paid—which was part of a change in the services that the provider wished to make.

Mr. Corbyn: I do not accept that.

Mr. Horam: Well, the fact is that the hon. Gentleman's own union negotiated an agreement which the workers did not accept. The hon. Gentleman made great play of the point that we should stand up for workers' rights and so forth, but when the union of which he is a member said to the workers in the dispute, "We advise you to settle on the terms that Pall Mall is willing to offer", they refused. Where does the hon. Gentleman stand? Is he in favour of trade union members accepting what has been negotiated by their officers or not?

Mr. Corbyn: The Minister and I both have a background of trade union negotiation and activity. The difference is that he pretends to forget it, whereas I do not. He knows perfectly well that, on many occasions, a union recommends something to its members which they subsequently do not accept. The duty of the union is then to continue to represent those members until they are satisfied with what is on offer. Unison has continued to represent those members, and it continues to campaign for their reinstatement and to try to force Pall Mall to keep to the agreement that it made in October 1994. What the public need to know from the Minister is whether he supports the Pall Mall group in its unilateral reneging on the conditions under which it employed the women in October 1994.

Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentlemans acknowledged the point that, unlike some of my colleagues, I have particular experience of trade unions. What that taught me was the realism that trade union negotiators often bring to situations where two sides may be very divided on what they wish to achieve. The practical negotiating skills that trade union negotiators often deploy should not be ignored. The fact is that Unison negotiators achieved an agreement which was then unilaterally turned down by the workers in question. One has to question why that was. I take no side on the issue, but I merely point out the facts. An agreement was brokered by Unison which the workers felt it right to turn down, for whatever reasons.
Before I was slightly sidetracked by the hon. Gentleman—quite reasonably, and I am not complaining about that—I was justifying the Government's approach to market testing. Market testing offers a practical and proven way in which to determine the best way in which to meet support service needs, in terms of both quality and value for money. It also gives local managers opportunities regularly to review support services in the


light of market developments and in response to local circumstances and needs. Legislation ensures that employees' rights are protected when there is a transfer of an undertaking and guidance on market testing incorporating advice on the legislation has been issued to the national health service generally.
If a contract is awarded under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which we all know as TUPE, staff transfer to the new contractor. Under TUPE, the new service provider, who is usually an incoming contractor, takes over the contracts of employment of all employees who were employed in the undertaking at the time of the relevant transfer. It is then up to him after a suitable period, if he wishes to do so, to renegotiate the contracts in the light of the situation as he sees it. It is not unusual to find that, in such a situation, the new provider offers compensation for any changes that he may wish to make in the contracts.
It is interesting that, of the people working for Pall Mall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said, 200 accepted all the changes. The only people who did not do so were a particular group of workers who decided to go against the views of their own union and not to accept the position.
I shall now return to the position at Hillingdon. Hillingdon hospital market tested its hotel services in 1994 and awarded a five-year contract to Pall Mall in October of that year. The hotel services concerned were catering, sterile services, laundry and portering, as well as cleaning, which had originally been contracted out to a different firm in the late 1980s.
The estimated savings achieved against previous costs were £500,000 on a contract for hotel services worth about £4 million. The contract won by Pall Mall at Hillingdon hospital was one to which TUPE applied. As a result, both the national health service workers affected and the domestic staff, who were already privately employed, became employees of Pall Mall, keeping their existing terms and conditions of employment.
Pall Mall spent six months in negotiation and consultation over new contracts for the transferred staff. The package included new shift patterns and rates of pay comparable with other employees in similar jobs in the area. I have spelled out the exact figures for the hon. Gentleman. More than 90 per cent. of the transferred work force signed the new contracts in autumn 1995. Regrettably, 30 domestic staff refused to accept the new contract and their existing contracts were terminated by Pall Mall on 31 October last year. A further 22 staff signed the new contract but never went back to work and were deemed by Pall Mall to have dismissed themselves.
Earlier this year, ACAS brokered an arrangement between the parties in the dispute which was recommended by Unison, as I mentioned, but which its members unfortunately rejected. The reasonableness or otherwise of that arrangement is not something on which I wish to comment, given the current industrial tribunal hearing.
The fact is that Pall Mall employs approximately 210 staff at Hillingdon hospital. None is on strike and Pall Mall is meeting its contractual obligations at the hospital under the contract for the hotel and cleaning services.
What concerns me is the action taken by some of the more vociferous individuals involved in the dispute. I understand that at one point, pickets using loudhailers were causing such a commotion that the hospital was concerned for the treatment of patients in intensive care. Hospital management pleaded with the pickets to moderate their behaviour. There are, therefore, questions about the behaviour of the pickets and not only about the behaviour of the management.

Mr. Corbyn: I have been waiting for the Minister to get on to smearing people who have lost their jobs as a result of a contract granted to a wealthy multinational corporation. Can the Minister now tell us—I have asked him this three times already—whether he approves of Pall Mall's action in imposing new conditions of service on staff in breach of its undertaking in October 1994? An important principle is involved. The Minister should recognise the justice of the workers' case and the strong passions aroused by the company's behaviour instead of attacking people who are trying to defend their existing conditions of service.

Mr. Horam: I was pointing out that I am responsible for the health service. I was also pointing out that some patients at Hillingdon were being seriously inconvenienced and that their health may have been detrimentally affected by the behaviour of the pickets outside. I deplore that, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman does too. Whatever he may feel about the rights of the pickets in question, he should realise that they should not interfere with the provision of health care at Hillingdon hospital. Does he accept that? The hon. Gentleman says nothing, but I feel as strongly about that point as he does about his case.

Mr. Corbyn: Those women gave 30 years to the national health service. They have shown a greater commitment to the national health service than the Minister and his Government have ever shown. He should intervene in the dispute to ensure justice for the women rather than raising what are, in effect, red herrings surrounding the serious issue of the disgraceful treatment of the employees concerned.

Mr. Horam: Interfering with the proper treatment of health service patients is not to be taken lightly. I am disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's attitude.
The fact is that Pall Mall took over and ACAS brokered an agreement which was agreed to by Unison, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member, but the workers in question did not choose to accept it, for whatever reasons. I am not commenting on those reasons; the workers obviously feel that they have justice on their side. Others may take a different view. Those are the facts of the matter. I hope that, when the industrial tribunal looks at the case, it will take all aspects into account and will come to a reasonable conclusion. That is the right and proper thing to do and I am sure that that will be done.
In the mean time, Pall Mall continues to fulfil all its contract requirements to Hillingdon hospital. It is regrettable that a few of Pall Mall's workers came to be in dispute with the company and, as I have said, it is now for the industrial tribunal to consider the rights and wrongs of the case.


The dispute is not a matter for the health service or for me. There is no suggestion that Hillingdon hospital has not acted properly at all times. On the issue of market testing, which the hon. Gentleman raised more generally, the Government do not intend to change a policy that has saved the national health service more than £1 billion. Market testing of national health service support services is not about contracting out services; it is aimed at producing more cost-effective services and better value for money from whatever source. That is precisely what has been achieved at Hillingdon and countless other hospitals. We certainly intend to continue what is an extremely sensible policy for the health of the nation.

Unitary Development Plan (Hillingdon)

Mr. John Wilkinson: I have two reasons to be grateful for the opportunity to discuss the proposed changes by Hillingdon borough council to the draft unitary development plan. First, the new planning proposals set out by the borough council cause the most acute local concern I have ever experienced in the 17 years that I have represented Ruislip-Northwood. Secondly, they raise aspects of environmental and housing policy that are of national significance, as they demonstrate the need to encourage the private rented sector, rather than relying on housing association developments subsidised by the taxpayer.
My constituency is largely residential, with some light industry at its southernmost extremity. Most people commute to London by tube or train, or travel by car to work at Heathrow airport or Stockley park or along the A4-M4 and A40-M40 corridors. Unemployment is the lowest of any Greater London constituency and, despite constant developmental pressures, limited school places and traffic congestion, Ruislip-Northwood is a pleasant place to live, to raise a family and to retire. It has excellent schools, good recreational facilities and playing fields and a high proportion of owner-occupied homes. In short, it comprises a harmonious blend of residential districts and public open space, underpinned with carefully designated, well preserved, green chain and metropolitan green belt areas.
That crucial harmony and balance have been deliberately put at risk by the Labour borough council's proposed changes to the UDP. When the plans became public in late July, proposing social housing development on up to 50 acres of green chain land, I immediately wrote to the leader of the Labour borough council, Councillor Chris Rogers, to protest that the wholesale social housing developments which were being promoted by the socialist borough council put at risk the quality of life of my constituents, would damage the environment irreparably and would be fiercely resisted by local residents.
It is worth quoting my letter verbatim, as it summarises the arguments clearly—not one of which was addressed by the Labour council leader in his curt reply:
I am in receipt of your letter of 22nd July 1996. Your comments have been noted.
Hon. Members will agree that maintaining the value of my constituents' homes, retaining playing fields and recreation grounds for their children and designated public open spaces in a green chain of protected areas for people to walk, exercise their dogs and breathe freely when so much of their daily lives is spent strap-hanging on the underground travelling to and from work and enduring endless traffic jams, noise from aircraft and motorways, are worthy planning priorities for any responsible outer London borough.
Under the heading "Urbanisation of Ruislip-Northwood", I wrote as follows:
Dear Councillor Rogers, I have been informed by Councillors in my constituency that Hillingdon Borough Council has arbitrarily and peremptorily altered the Hillingdon Draft Development Plan so as to permit the construction of very substantial amounts of social housing within my constituency.
First it would have been courteous if the Council had informed me in advance. Secondly and much more importantly these proposed developments on important predominantly green areas within Ruislip-Northwood will seriously degrade the local environment and prejudice the important amenity areas for local constituents.


The Field End Road and Sidmouth Drive recreation grounds are much appreciated by local people. Children have all too few areas on which to play and that the Council should deliberately curtail recreation space for children will be much resented and rightly, bitterly contested.
Likewise the St. Vincent's Hospital site is a particularly beautiful semi secluded area on the edge of Haste Hill which an aesthetically sensitive council responsible to the feelings of local people would wish to preserve.
It is clear that the Council has its own agenda to put as much open space as possible under concrete and brick. I believe my constituents will contest these thoroughly undesirable plans implacably and that they will organise to save our green fields from the clutches of inappropriate Council-sponsored developments.
Coming on top of your publicly quoted observations in favour of a Warner Bros Theme Park on green belt land in Uxbridge"—
in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby), who is here supporting me and is president of the Metropolitan London Green Belt Council—
it is clear that preserving the quality of life for local residents from undesirable urbanisation does not feature as a policy of Hillingdon Borough Council.
A little bit of imagination and sensitivity to local feelings could preserve an attractive environment for generations to come. The Council clearly prefers to promote an impersonal urban sprawl. I give you notice that it will he fiercely resisted.
It is small wonder that local people have been incensed. They see elected Labour councillors, who should be the custodians of the local environment and quality of life, deliberately setting their face against them. The civic centre has been inundated with thousands of objections. Public meetings have been held on Field End recreation ground and Sidmouth drive playing fields, and protest handbills are displayed in countless windows nearby.
Local Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) who sent a message of support and has done much locally, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), who is in his place, have been strenuous in their opposition, as have local residents' associations such as south Ruislip residents association in my constituency and Roxbourne residents association in Harrow, West. The Conservative councillors' group on Hillingdon borough council and responsible conservation groups, such as the Hillingdon group of the London Wildlife Trust, Friends of the Earth and the Sports Council have all protested in meticulous detail, itemising the environmental damage that would ensue from the plans.

Sir Michael Shersby: I fully support what my hon. Friend has said today. Does he agree that the general thrust of the modifications should concern the House and the Minister—that the plan seeks to
contribute as far as possible to the Borough's identified housing needs by seeking to ensure the highest acceptable number of new dwellings are provided in the form of affordable housing".
It takes no account of the need for other varieties of housing in the borough and is putting at risk green belt sites, green chain sites and other land locally.
The local authority has argued that the council has revised housing allocation, and is planning a 10 per cent. increase. That information came from the London Planning Advisory Committee. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will say a word or two about that.
It has also been argued by council officers that the inspector considering the original draft development plan made a comment to the effect that Hillingdon should be more proactive in the provision of such housing. I challenged them to show me where those words appeared. They do not appear anywhere; they are an interpretation by the council's officers, as was admitted to me at a recent meeting.

Mr. Wilkinson: rose—

Mr. Terry Dicks: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Wilkinson: I shall proceed for a sentence or two before giving way to my hon. Friend.
To his great credit, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment lodged his objections with Hillingdon borough council, which was an extremely responsible and unusual action and helped to concentrate the mind of the local authority. His action induced the council to bow to popular pressure and to withdraw the Sidmouth drive playing fields in my constituency from its plans for social housing development.

Mr. Dicks: Both my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) will recall that back in the '70s we had problems with the infamous Alderman John Bartlett, who wanted to turn Ruislip-Northwood into one massive council estate for political reasons. When the Conservatives took power in 1978—I was the housing chairman—I was presented with a waiting list of 10,000 people. It was completely false, because it contained the names of people who had bought their own homes or been rehoused years before. I am convinced that the figures in Hillingdon today have been falsified to justify what is called social housing—I call it council housing—and to turn even more of Ruislip-Northwood, parts of Uxbridge and parts of my constituency into council estates.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who brings incomparable experience of great relevance to the subject. The question of density is crucial and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge referred to the lack of balance, which perturbs my constituents particularly.
Now that the crucial democratic precedent has been established over Sidmouth drive playing fields, the council should also withdraw its proposals to build social housing on Field End road recreation ground in my constituency. The surface of the recreation ground is currently pockmarked with large boreholes, dug at the behest of the council at the council taxpayers' expense.
I tabled four parliamentary questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about his commendable intervention. It is worth recording the reply yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister who has responsibility for London:
Objections were made by my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to twenty six proposed modifications. The objections were made to modifications that appeared to bring the plan into conflict with national or regional policies without good reason and where that was proposed would result in the plan lacking clarity such that it could cause great difficulties to users later.
Twelve modifications concerned Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land; six modifications would produce policies or proposals that were unclear or imprecise; and three modifications conflicted


with our preferred approach to planning and affordable housing. A further five modifications to which objections were made related to proposals for residential development on two recreation grounds.
Objections to the published modifications in respect of the deposited Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan are addressed to the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon. I would be pleased to provide a copy of the objections made by my right hon. Friend, but the approach in the first place should be to the Council.
I have obtained a copy through other sources and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister with responsibility for London for their assiduous efforts to ensure that the interests of my constituents were safeguarded.
My hon. Friend the Minister continues:
We encourage local authorities to meet with objectors to discuss objections.
There have been no such effective meetings as yet, although on occasions there has been a dialogue of the deaf in the Ruislip-Northwood forum and elsewhere, but no proper reasoned dialogue.
These informal meetings are helpful, not least to consider how the plan might be changed to meet the objections. Officials in the Government Office for London and those from Hillingdon have met recently to pursue the objections made by my right hon Friend. Further discussion is likely once Hillingdon's response to the objections they have received is known.
In those circumstances, it is clear that Hillingdon borough council should act democratically and rescind its proposed changes to the draft unitary development plan. At the least, it should initiate a public inquiry, with an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. Following the inspector's report to the local authority, the Secretary of State could either direct appropriate modifications to the unitary development plan or call it in for his decision in its entirety.
My view is that the Labour Hillingdon borough council, which has clearly learnt nothing from the bad old days of socialist municipal vandalism at the hands of Alderman Bartlett 20 years ago, should waste no more council tax payers' money on proposals that have no public support, and should withdraw them totally at its unitary development plan sub-committee meeting on Thursday 21 November.
I reiterate my gratitude to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House for allowing me to bring the matters to your attention. They may appear parochial, but they raise issues of national importance and planning questions of the utmost significance to my constituents.
It must be borne in mind that constituencies such as mine and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and for Hayes and Harlington are under special developmental pressure. I mentioned the horrendous application by Warner Brothers to build a theme park and film studios in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge. It would have a crucial knock-on effect in my constituency. On top of that pressure we have the expansion of the motorway network and, of course, the potential fifth terminal at Heathrow airport.
The maintenance of pleasant residential areas, where it is possible to live happily and harmoniously in a balanced environment, is a crucial policy for any responsible local authority, which ours clearly is not. Luckily, it is a policy that I know that the Government support and that has received effective backing, throughout his tenure of office, from my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for London.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on securing this debate. He has received support from my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), and they are a formidable team. As has been pointed out, the proposed changes to Hillingdon's draft unitary development plan have caused considerable anxiety to the constituents of all three of my hon. Friends, and they have assiduously pursued those concerns.
The development plan—the unitary development plan in the case of Hillingdon—should under normal circumstances provide for rational and consistent decisions, and should give greater certainty about where new development will be permitted. In permitting plans, the right balance must be struck between the demand for development and the protection of the environment. In that way, plans have a key role to play in contributing to the Government's strategy for sustainable development. Plans help to provide for necessary development, but development should be sought only in locations that do not compromise the needs of future generations.
It is right that anyone with an interest in their area and the way it will develop in the future should participate in the preparation of the plan and help to influence the emerging proposals. Indeed, an objective of the plan-led system is to secure public involvement in shaping local planning policies.
More than two thirds of the London boroughs will have adopted plans by the end of the year. Until Hillingdon published its package of proposed modifications, it looked as if it too would be able to adopt its plan by the end of this year. Hillingdon has already taken its plan to public inquiry. The inspector's report recommended modifications to the plan where the modification would provide a definite improvement.
However, Hillingdon's modifications go further. They are numerous and complex. Several are at variance with the inspector's recommendations, and some modifications bring forward new proposals. While there may be occasions when local reasons support disagreement with an inspector's recommendation, the expectation is that authorities will wish to accept the inspector's recommendations in most cases.
Given what is included in Hillingdon's proposed modifications, the borough cannot be surprised to have received so many objections. I understand that it has received 4,000 or more, the majority relating to the proposals for affordable housing on the Field End and Sidmouth drive recreation grounds.
The modifications are controversial in other ways. For example, there are proposals that affect the metropolitan green belt and metropolitan open land, including proposals for housing. There are also changes in the designation of open areas currently identified as forming part of the green chains that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood mentioned. It is fair to say that we would prefer to let local authorities get on with their plan-making. However, we will object where the plan is at odds with national or regional policies without good reason, or where it is so technically defective that it could cause great difficulties to users later.


As my hon. Friend has already mentioned, we have objected to several of the modifications proposed by Hillingdon. We have objected to significant changes to the green belt and metropolitan open land. Our policy is clear: the essential characteristic of green belts is their longevity. Their protection must be maintained as far as can be seen ahead. Our planning policy guidance note on green belts—PPG2—advises that, once green belt boundaries have been defined, they should be altered only in exceptional circumstances.

Sir Michael Shersby: Does my hon. Friend agree that another principal aspect of green belt policy is the openness of land? So many people forget that openness is a key factor and that it needs to be borne in mind. Without openness, we have urban sprawl, we have development, we have towns joining together and we lose the benefit of living in a balanced, decent community.

Sir Paul Beresford: You can see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend is well versed in green belt matters. As president of the London green belt group, he makes his expertise clear.
As my hon. Friends are aware, the principles of control over development in the green belt also apply to metropolitan open land. Other proposals brought forward by the Hillingdon modifications are clearly of local concern but do not necessarily raise issues that would warrant an objection from us. The changes to the proposed green chains are an example.
Although the modifications affecting the Field End and Sidmouth Drive recreation grounds were part of a proposed green chain, they raise different issues. Here Hillingdon has proposed to build on the recreation grounds. Open space and playing fields will be lost. I am not entirely sure how much open space or how many playing fields will be lost, because Hillingdon council has not made the modifications clear.
Strategic guidance looks to the boroughs to maintain and enhance the quality of all London's open spaces, particularly our parks. We expect to see policies in UDPs

for the protection of open spaces. Our planning policy guidance for sport and recreation—PPG17—makes it clear that all playing fields are of special significance and that, if they are not required for their original purpose, they may be able to meet the growing need for recreational land in the wider community. Our expectation is that playing fields will normally be protected.
For these reasons, we objected to the modifications affecting the recreation grounds. Frankly, we also needed to object because what was proposed was far from clear. We do not know how much open space will be lost, how much development is proposed or whether it is necessary—in other words, the sort of questions that my hon. Friends and their constituents are asking.
It is apparent that local people feel strongly that a further UDP inquiry is warranted. In the first place, this is for Hillingdon to consider, but we have advised planning authorities that a further inquiry will be necessary where objections to modifications raise issues that were not examined at an earlier stage.
I understand that Hillingdon officers are preparing a report for their members' committee meeting to be held on 21 November, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood mentioned. I anticipate that the report will set out the options on the way forward—including, we hope, a further local inquiry.
I urge my hon. Friends—although I realise that I do not need to urge them—to continue to press their concerns with the local authority. We will keep a close eye on the plan and pursue our objections until we are satisfied that the proposals do not conflict with our policy guidance. It is, of course, too early to consider whether intervention in the plan is warranted. We must first wait to see what else emerges from Hillingdon's consideration of the objections that it has received. I hope that the council is receptive and responsive.

It being seven minutes to Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

Unemployed People (Work Schemes)

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will introduce a scheme to enable unemployed people to be given work at a minimum of —160 per week on environment, transport, community care and educational schemes; and if she will make a statement. [2070]

The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): Our policies help unemployed people take the real jobs that the economy is creating. The approach is working: employment has risen by 210,000 in the past year and we are constantly developing new approaches to maximise our programmes' effectiveness.

Mr. Wigley: I am disappointed at, if not surprised by, the Minister's response. I warmly welcome the fall in unemployment which was announced today, but even if every vacant job were filled, there would still be more than 80,000 people unemployed in Wales and more than 1.7 million unemployed in the United Kingdom. Would it not make better sense to pay those people to do the worthwhile work that needs to be done in terms of the environment, community care, transport and all the other sectors in which jobs are not necessarily provided by the free market, rather than leaving them to rot on the dole for years until they find work again?

Mr. Forth: No, not in the absolute sense that the hon. Gentleman suggests. There is a divide here between those who believe in a general make-work scheme, where the taxpayer pays people to do what is regarded as useful across the nation, and those who believe in a more targeted approach, where we try in different way to find what works in helping the long-term unemployed get back to work, including giving them useful work experience. If at the same time they can do useful work in local communities, that is all well and good, and our project work programme has demonstrated that that is possible. The difference is between those who believe in a blanket, unquestioning approach and those who believe in a targeted approach, and I think ours is the better.

Home-school Contracts

Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received on the introduction of home-school contracts for all schools. [2071]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I have received a variety of representations about home-school agreements.

Mr. Hardy: Although it appears that the Government are beginning to move along the road down which the Labour party has pointed for some time, will the Minister assure the House that she will not adopt the approach in

order to pursue selection any further? Does she recognise that the value of the approach could be considerable? Will she assist local authorities to secure the resources to allow it to be effective?

Mrs. Shephard: Many schools will find such agreements to be a useful part of their policies for strengthening parental support and involvement. As many authorities and schools already have such arrangements, I see no need for extra resources.

Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the Opposition's conversion to the policies of this Government, policies that will do much to help improve the quality and standards of state education? Will she confirm that it will be up to individual schools to decide what actually goes into the home-school contracts and that, if people want a particular contract to refer to the disciplinary measures that a school wishes to introduce, that will be quite in order?

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is ingenious, as ever; indeed, his ingenuity matches his common sense. The content of home-school agreements would certainly be up to individual admission authorities, be they local education authorities or schools. However, the Bill will include a power for the Secretary of State to rule out particular conditions.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Clapham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the reliability of the unemployment statistics in informing her Department's policy decisions. [2072]

Mr. Forth: I have total confidence in the statistics produced here by the Office for National Statistics, in Luxembourg by the European Commission and in Paris by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, all of which show that our unemployment rate is among the lowest in Europe and falling.

Mr. Clapham: Is the Minister aware that the Government have changed the method of measuring unemployment 32 times since 1979 and that that has been done to fiddle the figures? If he has such confidence in the statistics, can he confirm that, since 1992, the utilities—gas, water, electricity and telecommunications—have lost 89,743 jobs and have made £33 billion? Does that not support the case for a windfall tax and should not the utilities be encouraged to create jobs rather than lose them?

Mr. Forth: I am in the fortunate position of not needing to fiddle the figures, because unemployment is in any case falling, by any measure. I regret to say that the hon. Gentleman was not listening to what I said: I said that not only our figures but those—no doubt beloved of Opposition Members—produced by the European Commission in Luxembourg, no less, show that unemployment is low and falling. The Eurostat figures released yesterday demonstrate that fact yet again. The International Labour Organisation—also much admired by Opposition Members—has verified the fact that our unemployment rate is now significantly lower than those


of our major European competitors and that unemployment is falling here and rising in the other countries.

Sir Michael Neubert: Are not today's unemployment figures, the best for five and a half years, directly attributable to the policy of the Department for Education and Employment, and a credit to it? What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the effect on the unemployment statistics of a national minimum wage, compulsory paternity leave, compulsory consultation, a maximum working week and a minimum annual leave requirement? All those burdens on business are espoused and supported by the Labour party.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he has gone to the heart of the argument about what creates jobs. I believe that we can clearly demonstrate that the creation of jobs by the private sector is due entirely to the provision of an environment in which business can succeed, inward investment can be attracted and employers and employees can work out the best arrangements for conducting their business. The mindless regulatory approach that is all too common among many of our competitors and partners in the European Union would threaten all that. That is why the Government will continue to resist any attempt to impose unnecessary restrictions and regulations on our business sector, which is demonstrating a unique capacity to create real jobs.

Mr. Don Foster: I welcome today's unemployment figures, but does the Minister agree that he should not make too large a claim for Government policies because, based on the statistics that he has said are so reliable, it is clear that the vast majority of new jobs being created are part time and temporary? Analysis of his figures shows that there has been a reduction of 400,000 full-time equivalent jobs over the past 12 months.

Mr. Forth: Try telling that to the people of France, Germany, Spain and Italy, who would be pathetically grateful for job creation such as we have had here and whose Governments are doing them a gross disservice by the policies that they are pursuing. The hon. Gentleman does not have to take my word for it: the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and all the respected international authorities will confirm that the United Kingdom has found the answer to the needs of a modern, competitive economy while other countries, regrettably, are going in completely the wrong direction.

Mr. Thomason: Has my hon. Friend formed any view on the reliability of the unemployment statistics for Germany, France, Italy and some other European countries to which he referred, which demonstrate that Britain has a far lower rate of unemployment? In addition, has my hon. Friend any views on why Britain might be producing such good results?

Mr. Forth: If one looks simply at the statistics produced by, for example, the ILO or Eurostat, which produced its latest figures just yesterday, quite apart from our internal figures, one can see that on a comparative basis even they demonstrate that unemployment in France, Germany and Italy is high and rising, whereas in Britain it is low and falling. Those are incontrovertible

facts measured by the ILO and Eurostat. The reason for that can now be seen clearly in the difference in approach and policy between the British Government and other Governments on the continental mainland. That is the nub of the argument about, for example, the 48-hour directive. It is also the reason for the allegations of cover-ups in the Commission of information that would seem to justify the policies that we have been pursuing, which I guess is why they have not made the public domain.

Mr. Byers: Will the Minister confirm that, on his own figures, one in five households of working age have no one in a job and that 2,750,000 men of working age without a job simply do not appear in today's unemployment figures? How much of today's apparent cut in unemployment is due not to people going into work but simply to people moving from one benefit to another?

Mr. Forth: Probably about 15,000.

Mr. Marland: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in the United Kingdom, more people are in work and fewer people are out of work than in any other European country, and that that is due in no small measure to the fact that we have no social chapter and no minimum wage?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because it gives the lie to the remarkable contortions that Opposition Members go through to produce something resembling bad news about what is happening on our labour and employment front. I am glad to say that Britain has produced the capacity to provide more work for people who want it than most of our European competitors and partners. That is something in which we can take satisfaction. We shall continue to provide the environment in which business can prosper, inward investment can take place and employers and employees can work out their own arrangements, to maximise employment in Britain.

Youth Training Scheme

Mr. Rooney: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations she has received on the effectiveness of the youth training scheme. [2073]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): The Department has recently received many representations as part of a public consultation on the future of youth training as recommended by Sir Ron Dearing in his review of 16-to-19 qualifications.

Mr. Rooney: The Minister will be aware that some 50 per cent. of trainees fail to complete their youth training course. It is now 10 years since the rate for 17-year-olds and eight years since the rate for 16-year-olds was increased. Would not a review of training allowances encourage people to stay longer in the training scheme?

Mr. Paice: The figure for the number of leavers is open to confusion because it includes those who leave one scheme to re-enrol on another. They are classified as


leavers even if they go on to complete a second scheme that proves more to their liking. Therefore, that is not an accurate figure to quote.
We have always made it clear that the allowances are minimums. Roughly a third of people on the youth training programme are regarded as employees on a wage agreed with their employer, another third receive significant top-up payments from the training provider or the business with which they are associated, and the other third are on the basic rate. But, as we have always said, that figure is kept under review.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is it not encouraging that the number of young people aged 16 and 17 who have completed their compulsory education and are in training or full-time education has risen from 71 per cent. only 10 years ago to 84 per cent. today? Is that not significant in respect of what the Government are doing and very encouraging for our young people who have to compete in the modern world?

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Those figures represent a dramatic increase in participation in all sorts of learning, both in full-time education and in training.

Mr. Blunkett: And in training!

Mr. Paice: The barracking from hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench is interesting—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): They are not listening.

Mr. Paice: I think that they are listening because, interestingly, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) is denigrating the fact that some of those people are in training and not in full-time education. He obviously believes that it is somehow better to be in full-time education than in training. I have to tell him that, if he talks to business men, he will hear that they often find it much better to have a young person in their business—perhaps on a modern apprenticeship programme—who is learning on the job. They are just as capable of developing qualifications in that way and that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) was entirely right to draw our attention to those figures.

Training and Business Organisation Mergers

Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her Department's policy towards the merging of TECs, business links and local chambers of commerce. [2074]

Mr. Paice: The Government support such mergers where this is the wish of all the local partners concerned.

Ms Lynne: The Minister is aware of the proposed merger between Rochdale chamber of commerce and Rochdale training and enterprise council, incorporating business link and the enterprise trust. Does he agree that, although Rochdale already has an excellent record on

exports, that merger can only improve the situation and build on our very good record on manufacturing industry in the borough?

Mr. Paice: There have already been nine such mergers and, in most cases, they are delivering the benefits to which the hon. Lady referred. I am, indeed, aware that Rochdale TEC, the local chamber of commerce and other organisations are considering a merger and I congratulate them on the fact that they are consulting widely at this stage, before formulating any proposals to the Government. If that leads to a proposition to the Government for approval for a merger, I shall, of course, bear the hon. Lady's points in mind.

Mr. Brooke: In the context of the merger of the central London TECs, to what extent has my hon. Friend received intimations of the relative underfunding of the London TECs compared with those in the rest of the country? Would it be sensible to make representations to him, rather than to anyone else?

Mr. Paice: I obviously find it difficult to accept my right hon. Friend's use of the term "underfunding" in relation to London TECs—the London TECs are funded on the same principle as TECs throughout the country and that is not a level of underfunding that I understand. If my right hon. Friend has particular concerns, the first place to which he should take them, together with the merged Centec organisation, is the Government office for London, which apportions funding between all the London TECs. I am sure he understands that, if he would like to see me about it, I should be delighted to talk to him.

Mr. Sheerman: Is not the Minister's pathetically timid response—[Interruption.] We will probably have to use the word "pathetically" all the time this afternoon. Is it not a fact that the Deputy Prime Minister has consistently said—using much stronger language than the Minister—that he wants vigorously to encourage those mergers up and down the country as a positive part of the Government's policy? That pathetically timid response does not square with that attitude.

Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman will find that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, under whose auspices the competitiveness White Papers are published, has said exactly this: that where there is clear local demand for a merger and partners come forward, the Government support the merger.

Mr. Sheerman: It is on record.

Mr. Paice: It is also on record that we have an on-going evaluation process of the nine mergers that have already taken place. We believe that, at this stage, it would be premature for the Government actively to promote mergers, but we are quite pleased and delighted to see them when they come forward based on local initiatives.

Mr. Waterson: Is my hon. Friend aware of how successful has been the merger between the Sussex TEC and chamber? Is he aware of the tremendous boost given to local business people in my constituency yesterday,


when we had the privilege of a visit by the Deputy Prime Minister, who gave his support to the local business partnership?

Mr. Paice: I am aware of the success of the Sussex merger which my hon. Friend described. I was not aware that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was there, but I am delighted to hear that he was. As has already been said, I am sure that he will have been pleased to see the success there, as we have seen it elsewhere. I have no doubt that such mergers will continue to take place elsewhere.

Assisted Places Scheme

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money has been spent on the assisted places scheme since its inception. [2075]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): Over the 15 years since it started in 1981, we have spent just over £800 million on the assisted places scheme in England. This has helped over 80,000 able children, four fifths currently from families below the national average income.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister now tell us the whole truth, which is that, if we include the Scottish and Welsh expenditure, the assisted places scheme has cost the taxpayer more than £1.1 billion? That money has been used to subsidise private fee-paying schools when it could and should be spent on deprived local education authority schools which educate the overwhelming majority of children.

Mrs. Gillan: First, after his years of experience in the House, the hon. Gentleman should know that matters concerning Wales and Scotland should be addressed to my right hon. and hon. Friends in those Departments. If he thinks about it, he will see that, even in England, if we have spent about £300 billion on education over the past 15 years, the amount that we have spent on the assisted places scheme is considerably less than 0.5 per cent. The assisted places are good value for money—far better value for money than schools such as Hackney Downs.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware—I know that several of her right hon. and hon. Friends are—of the cruel and cynical decision by the Lib-Lab coalition that now runs Lincolnshire county council to abolish the county assisted places schemes for the Stamford endowed schools? That leaves a population of 20,000 in the town of Stamford without any sixth form for children whose parents cannot afford to pay fees. Does my hon. Friend agree that a vicious and ideologically inspired decision such as that is a frightening foretaste of what would happen to the country if a Labour or Lib-Lab Government came to power after the next election?

Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend is right to draw this matter to the attention of the House. Yet again, we have evidence of another reduction of choice perpetrated by the Opposition on the parents of children.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Given the extraordinary figure of —1.1 billion spent on the assisted places scheme, will the

hon. Lady confirm that 32 per cent. of primary school pupils in the maintained sector—1.3 million children—are in classes of more than 30? Is it not a national disgrace that, while they are languishing in those over-size classes, the money is being spent as a subsidy in the private sector? Does the hon. Lady agree with her hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who said that there are two things wrong with the assisted places scheme—its principle and its practice?

Mrs. Gillan: Once again, we are privileged to hear the hon. Gentleman, who seems to have lost not only his moustache but his sense of humour. One needs a sense of humour to listen to the same old rubbish that is peddled by the hon. Gentleman time after time. People know that the assisted places scheme is good value for money. It offers opportunity to the most able pupils from the least well-off families. Indeed, 40 per cent. of the pupils in the scheme come from families with an income below £9,873.
That attitude is a bit rich, because more than 20 Labour Members went to independent schools such as Eton, Winchester and Fettes. They now have a policy that would deny children from less well-off families the ability to attend good independent schools. It is the politics of envy at its worst.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to her last answer, does my hon. Friend agree that the assisted places scheme gives a chance to bright youngsters who have the misfortune to live in Labour-controlled local education authorities? They have a chance to escape from those areas, as did the children of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). They can have a decent education and a good start in life, which they would never get under Labour.

Mrs. Gillan: As usual, my hon. Friend is in fine form, and makes a good point full of common sense. The scheme widens the educational opportunities of able children from less well-off families, and gives them a choice of an education that they would not otherwise have had. That is why in the Education Bill we propose an expansion of the scheme to include preparatory schools. That paves the way for more choice for parents.

Personal and Social Education

Mr. Alan Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on her plans for the development of personal and social education. [2076]

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Personal and social education is firmly established in schools and backed by statute. The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority is consulting on ways of supporting schools and teachers in that work.

Mr. Howarth: While in no way depreciating the importance of academic excellence, may I put it to the Secretary of State that the national curriculum, as it has developed, is now designed almost soley to equip young people for the competitive rat race? Does she accept that other values also matter in education, and does she regret, as I do, that the Government did not previously make


personal and social education a statutory requirement? Does she agree that all schools should have at the heart of their mission the education of young people in personal and social responsibility?

Mrs. Shephard: To reassure the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him that schools do a great deal of good work in personal, social and health education. To reassure him further, I point out that that work is subject to regular inspection by the Office for Standards in Education. The standard of work done by schools can be made known to parents, and to people in the wider community. Ofsted inspectors must report on pupils' behaviour in and around schools, and consider whether they form constructive relationships with one another and with teachers and other adults.
The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority is undertaking consultation—of which we all know—to see whether those aspects of education could be strengthened in the national curriculum, which is currently being revised.

Mr. Bellingham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, had the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) had a more fulfilling personal and social education, he might not have had the mid-life crisis that has led to the eccentricity that he has displayed in the past year?

Madam Speaker: Order. That is not the right form of parliamentary question. Questions should deal with Government policy.

Mr. Gunnell: What will it do for children's personal and social development if the Secretary of State's colleagues, with her apparent support, introduce into schools legalised physical violence, which I regard as physical child abuse?

Mrs. Shephard: The provisions on discipline that the Government have included in the Education Bill are what teachers have asked for. I have made it clear to the House on a number of occasions that teachers have not asked for the return of corporal punishment, and the Government do not propose to include that in the Bill.

General National Vocational Qualifications

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the impact of GNVQs on educational standards. [2077]

Mr. Paice: GNVQs are having a remarkable impact on the motivation of young people of all abilities, and we are now building on their early success.

Mr. Lidington: I invite my hon. Friend to visit Buckinghamshire to see for himself that the introduction of GNVQs in schools in my constituency has increased student motivation and students' levels of achievement. Does he agree that the increasing success of GNVQs should be a source of pride for the students and teachers directly concerned, for Buckinghamshire local education

authority, which has strongly supported the introduction of GNVQs, and for the Government, who introduced the qualification in the first place?

Mr. Paice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the invitation, and I shall accept it if I possibly can.
I agree with my hon. Friend on GNVQs. Anyone who has been to schools and spoken to students of different ages who are undertaking a GNVQ can only be excited about the motivation of those students. Many of them admit to having been turned off by the more formal approach to education, and are finding that the approach adopted in the GNVQ process gives them an exciting chance to continue learning. That is what it is all about, and why the Government are proud of the development of GNVQs, which have enabled many young people to continue learning who might otherwise have been discouraged from gaining further qualifications. That is the objective of all of us.

Mr. Bryan Davies: The reforms of GNVQs are welcome and long overdue, but is it not clear that the Government's promotion of grammar schools and small sixth forms in grant-maintained schools run counter to the development of vocational education? It widens the gap between academic and vocational education at just the time when we should be seeking to bridge that gap.

Mr. Paice: That is a non sequitur. The whole purpose of establishing a range of different schools, each specialising in a different approach, is to enable young people and their parents to choose what is best for their personal needs. I know of many schools with very high academic achievements, which have always produced good A-level results and which have gone out and grasped GNVQs, seeing them as a sensible and, indeed, essential system to run alongside A-levels. Nothing in the Bill or the Government's proposals would in any way reduce young people's opportunity to choose the qualifications that are most appropriate to their needs.

Teaching Methods

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the teaching skills and methods employed in schools. [2078]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): The Government are determined to ensure that all teachers use effective teaching methods to raise standards, particularly in basic literacy and numeracy.

Lady Olga Maitland: Given that trendy teaching methods, together with political correctness, are the principal cause of appalling results in some schools—mainly those in the bottom 10 local education authorities, which are controlled by Labour—what steps will the Minister take to root out such methods?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is aware of several of the steps that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already announced. It is, of course, regrettable that any teaching method should depend on passing fashion, and she rightly criticises some now obsolete fashions. The


reforms that we have introduced give greater accountability to heads and governors to enable them to tackle any teachers who are currently under-performing, and the emphasis on standards should enable most of those teachers to improve. I expect—and, indeed, parents expect—the minority of teachers who are not performing adequately, and cannot improve, to be shown the door and given the chance to work in a less challenging environment.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Minister aware that the proportion of teachers who use information technology as part of their classroom teaching has remained constant for the past two years? What is he going to do to improve teachers' confidence in such technology, and to ensure that the outdated computers in classrooms are replaced as soon as possible?

Mr. Squire: This country has one of the finest records in supplying information technology to schools. We were in there first, and our investment bears comparison with that of any other country. As for the specific question of teacher confidence, the hon. Lady knows that information technology is now one of the cross-curriculum requirements. More and more teachers are required to be adept in its use. It features heavily in on-course in-set training, and it is also being given more attention in initial training.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that, following reform of the structure of education and the introduction of a national curriculum and testing, teaching methods and skills are now the crux of the modern education debate? Will he give every support to the Office for Standards in Education, enabling it to take a rational view about which methods work and which fail? Is there not ample evidence to show that some of the trendier "group learning situations" constructed by education thinkers of the 1960s and 1970s have been an utter failure? There is now cross-party support behind the party-political battle; those methods must be rooted out, and teachers must undertake proper instruction rather than simply waiting for children to pick up the skills that they need.

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In particular, he is right to stress that teaching is about giving instruction, not just about allowing pupils to discover themselves. The emphasis today in teaching, particularly in initial teacher training, is to ensure that all teachers coming into our schools should acquire a range of skills and the ability to determine when it is appropriate to use them. We are determined that all teachers will reach that target.

Job Insecurity

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to introduce measures to reduce job insecurity. [2079]

Mr. Forth: The best protection against job insecurity is sustained economic growth and increased competitiveness. We will continue the policies that have resulted in the economy growing for more than three

years, unemployment falling by more than 908,000 since the recovery began and the number of jobs rising by more than 210,000 in the past year.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not a commentary on this wretched Government that, since the Prime Minister was appointed just six years ago, nearly 11 million people have experienced some form of unemployment and, moreover, that there are 1 million fewer jobs in the economy than in 1990? Therefore, is it not justified that the next round of job losses will be those of quite a few Tory Members of Parliament?

Mr. Forth: Labour Members are so desperate about the regular and persistent fall in unemployment that they have to scratch around for such odd figures. If 300,000 people enter and leave the job register every month, as they do now and as they have for many years, of course we can identify many people who, from time to time, will both have lost jobs and, happily, gained jobs. Statistics show that, for men and women, average job tenure is little different from that 10 years ago, so the myth that Labour Members feel obliged to peddle about job insecurity is simply their desperate response to the heartening and continuing fall in unemployment.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, since 1992, there has been a drop of some 750,000 in the number of people unemployed? Will he compare that drop with the increases in unemployment in Germany, France and other countries that follow the policies peddled by the Labour party? Does he agree that the greatest threat to job security is the introduction of a national minimum wage and the social chapter, which Labour would introduce?

Mr. Forth: Indeed. It must be one of the great puzzles of today's political scene that the Labour party espouses and seems to find attractive all the policies that emanate from continental Europe—and have failed almost every country in continental Europe. If Labour Members cared as much as they claim to about jobs and employment, would they not doubt that, if they introduced the social chapter and the minimum wage, the risk would be, that unemployment here would rise to the level in countries that are pursuing those policies? It is not a risk that I would want to take.

Mr. Hain: The millions of people who are trapped in job insecurity are certainly not pathetically grateful to the Government. Indeed, they will give them a real caning at the next general election. The Minister says that job insecurity is a myth. Is he aware that Government figures show that more than half the people who leave a job for the dole are out of work again in under a year? The new Tory world of work is insecure, short term, temporary and casual. Is he also aware that, instead of indulging in playground politics in Europe, people want him to tackle insecurity at home?

Mr. Forth: On behalf of many of my hon. Friends, may I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the caning tendency? I am sure that he will be a most welcome addition.
It simply will not do for Labour Members to think that, if they keep talking about job insecurity frequently enough, they will somehow increase the feeling of


insecurity outside the House. It is dishonest for politicians to try to scare the electorate with repeated talk about such things as job insecurity. The figures that I have given do not support such talk. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will look more seriously at their own policies, because if anything will increase job insecurity in the future, it is Labour party policy.

Legislation

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many Bills on education matters have been introduced by her Department or its predecessor since 1979. [2080]

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: My Department has introduced 20 Bills relating to education since 1979.

Mr. Skinner: Would it be fair to say that, after 17 Tory years, the Government are now introducing education Bills that partly repeal the Bills they introduced in the 1979 to 1984 period? The Tories have turned full circle. When they first started, they were in favour of abolishing grammar schools, but now they want to create them; they were in favour of getting rid of the cane, but now Miss Whiplash wants to bring it back. All the time, teachers are falling down the pay ladder and more than 1 million primary kids are in classes of more than 30. We need about £4 billion to be spent on schools to bring them up to a decent standard of repair, but the Tories took away £50-odd billion from local authorities—mainly Labour ones—in the form of grant, most of which should have been spent on education.

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman's rant does very little credit to his grammar school education. Perhaps I can point out to him that our reforms have resulted in higher standards, more choice, more transparency and more accountability in the education system. I should have thought that it was a matter of shame that the Labour party has voted against measures that resulted in those improvements.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Would my right hon. Friend like to remind the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that education is a dynamic science that constantly changes? It is therefore essential to keep on introducing new Bills to keep abreast of new developments. Bearing in mind what my right hon. Friend said about no teacher organisations making representations for the return of moderate and reasonable corporal punishment in schools, would she accept such representations from present or former individual members of the profession?

Mrs. Shephard: I agree with my hon. Friend that if the Opposition were so concerned about education they could start by looking at the records of their political colleagues in local education authorities throughout the land. It is a matter of great regret that they have voted against parental choice, more information about schools and admission arrangements, and even against the inspection of schools. Their attitude really defies description.

Primary School Class Sizes

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children of primary schools are currently in classes of more than 30 pupils. [2083]

Mr. Robin Squire: In January 1996, 32 per cent. of primary pupils were in single-teacher classes of more than 30. About a third of those pupils were in classes supported by at least one member of non-teaching staff.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister agree that those figures are outrageous and disgraceful, and that standards in our primary schools have got worse and worse in the past 17 years with more and more pupils in large classes in which it is obviously difficult to give them the proper support and tuition that they need? Will he tell us about his plans for the future, because all the estimates I have seen suggest that more and more children will be in classes of more than 30 pupils, and will therefore get a worse and worse education? Will he tell us what plans he has to ensure a proper supply of properly qualified and trained teachers? What are his plans for proper expenditure to ensure that school buildings are of a sufficient standard to accommodate more, smaller classes, which will ensure that all our children get the standard of education that they deserve and need?

Mr. Squire: How interesting. First of all, a small fact: the percentage of pupils who are in classes of more than 30 is now smaller than it was when we came to power in 1979. I invite the hon. Gentleman to find, at some other stage, the adjective to describe our predecessors, the Labour Government. It is rather more important than that, because the hon. Gentleman comes from the borough of Islington and, indeed, represents it. In Islington, class sizes are below the national average, yet after 11 years of compulsory education, Islington's pupils have the worst record of attainment at GCSE level of any authority in the country. The Labour party has run that authority for the past 25 years. It is down to local education authorities to decide how the money is spent and what standards are maintained. Islington may be the borough of the chattering classes; unfortunately, it is also the borough of failing classes.

Sir Alan Haselhurst: Although I acknowledge that smaller class sizes must be better than larger class sizes, is not what really matters the amount of attention that each child gets from the teacher and support staff in the classroom, and the quality of the teaching?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend—who is very experienced in these matters—is absolutely right. If there were any doubt about that fact even among Opposition Members, the events of the past year should have disabused them of their belief, to which they adhere fanatically, that class size is all. The pupil-teacher ratio at Hackney Downs was eight to one, and the ratio at the Ridings school was 15 to one. Reports from the three inner-London education authorities earlier this year showed that four out of 10 of their 11-year-olds were two or more years behind the reading age for an 11-year-old. That is disgraceful, but it is not due to class sizes.

Mr. Bayley: If the Minister genuinely agrees with the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst) that


smaller classes provide a better education than bigger classes, will the Government match the Labour party's commitment to cut class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds to a maximum of 30?

Mr. Squire: For a start, the Labour party has not even begun to find the money—which may be as much as £250 million—to meet that pledge. No one is saying that class size is not important. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are."] No. The Labour party, however, says that it is the single most important issue, which is manifestly untrue. This year and next year, there will undoubtedly be parents in the hon. Gentleman's constituency who will have a choice about which school to send their children to. They will sometimes choose the school that has larger classes and is more popular, and reject the school—which may even be closer—with smaller classes. All the evidence suggests that the belief that the issue is all about class size is simply wrong.

Schools (Examination Results)

Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many (a) grant-maintained and (b) local education authority schools are represented in the top 50 state schools measured by A-level results. [2084]

Mrs. Gillan: The 1995 school performance tables show that 32 of the top 50 schools in England measured by A-level results were grant maintained and 18 were local education authority maintained.

Mrs. Peacock: Does my hon. Friend agree that A-level results show that GM schools enhance our children's education? Will she also confirm that the Labour party's policy would do great damage to our children's education?

Mrs. Gillan: Yes; I have great pleasure in confirming what my hon. Friend says. Overall, pupils in grant-maintained schools taking two or more A-levels achieve a higher average point score, at 17.1, than LEA pupils, at 15.5. The Labour party presents the real threat to grant-maintained schools, and its continued hostility to them is paraded openly. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) should speak up, and, when next they visit the schools that their children attend, tell the head teachers of their plans to disrupt the schools and to put them under LEA control.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that the concept of a top and a bottom in tables of attainment is meaningless compared with the absolute standards achieved by all the schools? Will she note the damage done by publication of tables, and back both the head and the parents of students at Cheltenham college, who have taken a sensible view of education—against the views of their rather narrow-minded, business-minded and statistically minded governors?

Mrs. Gillan: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's party was becoming rather keen on our performance tables, which have bedded down extremely successfully.

Higher standards and better results, which is what we are now getting from our schools, are what we expect and what we have delivered in the education system.

Mr. Stephen: My hon. Friend will be aware that many of the top 50 schools—judging by A-level results—are in the private sector, where head teachers have the power to use the cane if in their professional judgment it is the right way in which to deal with a particular pupil. She may recall that, two years ago, I tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to give back that power to head teachers in the state sector, from which she may deduce that it is my personal view that head teachers in the state sector should have that power. What response has there been from parents and the general public to the current debate on the issue?

Mrs. Gillan: I am always interested, as I am sure is the whole House, to hear my hon. Friend's personal views on a wide range of subjects, which he often brings to the Floor of the House. As he knows, there have been no demands to increase the disciplinary measures that we are introducing, over and above those in the Education Bill.

Nursery Vouchers

Mr. Touhig: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much she plans to spend on publicity relating to the national implementation of the nursery voucher scheme.[2085]

Mr. Robin Squire: The estimated budget for publicity about the nursery education voucher scheme in England, up to its initial implementation, is —1,900,000—or 0.25 per cent. of total estimated expenditure on the scheme. The publicity will include essential information for more than 650,000 parents and some 40,000 providers of nursery education.

Mr. Touhig: That is in addition to the —1.1 million spent on promoting the pilot scheme. Does the Minister agree that Britain's four-year-olds are more deserving of taxpayers' revenue than the advertising industry? If he does, how does he justify spending —3 million on advertising the nursery voucher scheme when that amount could provide an extra 2,500 nursery places?

Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman has obviously been asleep. Next year, a total of —750 million will be spent on nursery places, of which —165million will be new money and go only into pre-school provision. To ensure that parents and, indeed, providers are able to take full advantage of the scheme, it is essential—indeed, it would be a dereliction of duty by the Government if we did not ensure it—that, as in phase 1, parents are able to see the expansion of places and the enhancement of opportunity.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way in which to publicise the great success of the nursery voucher scheme would be to ask the parents of children who have benefited from the vouchers in the pilot areas, such as Norfolk and various London boroughs, to publicise it? Will he join me in inviting the Labour party to condemn the schools in Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled LEAs that have tried to blackmail parents by telling them that they can send their children


to the popular state schools only if they attend the authorities' nurseries, thus destroying the choice that many parents want to exercise through nursery vouchers as between state and private sector nurseries? Are not we about choice and diversity and the Opposition, as always, about trying to force parents down the state road only?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is right in both his main points. One of many interesting statistics that were published today is the independent survey of parental opinion which shows that vouchers are popular with parents in phase 1. I have no doubt that they will be popular in phase 2. On his second point, the concern that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have about the possibility of LEAs or individual schools acting in the way he described has led to our writing a letter to every LEA reminding them that simply cramming more four-year-olds into overcrowded reception classes will not necessarily be the best way forward, and encouraging them to draw on the examples of authorities such as Shropshire, Norfolk and York, which have already recognised the advantages of partnership.

Mr. Blunkett: Was it not this Government who removed the minimum space requirements—a policy that has allegedly led to the cramming of children into reception classes? Is it not a fact that no one has ever had to advertise nursery places, only nursery vouchers? The use of £900,000 of public money on television and radio advertising out of the £3 million total budget is nothing short of a scandalous and blatant political exercise to try to win votes.

Mr. Squire: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong on every material particular. He is certainly wrong to suggest that the advertisements are in some way party political. [Interruption.] If those hon. Members who disagree had seen the advertisements, they would know that they are as party political as the weather forecast, but slightly more interesting.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) for his campaign attacking nursery vouchers. I am enormously relieved that he is giving us so much extra free publicity, reminding parents across the country what they will lose if Labour gets in at the next election.

Assisted Places Scheme

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many places at private schools are being financed by the assisted places scheme in the 1996–97 academic year. [2086]

Mrs. Gillan: There are 37,816 assisted places available at 355 schools in England.

Mr. Williams: There are 7 million children in schools in England and Wales. The assisted places scheme benefits only a tiny minority—less than 1 per cent. How can it be right to take resources away from the many to benefit just a few? How does that square with the Prime Minister's avowed intention of creating a classless society and opportunity for all?

Mrs. Gillan: I cannot believe that the Labour Members are still peddling their opposition to the assisted places scheme. It is extremely good value for money, as I have said many times from the Dispatch Box. The average cost of an assisted place is somewhat higher than, but of the same order as, an average maintained pupil place. The difference is not excessive. An assisted place, the average cost of which is —3,700, is better value than the cost of maintained places in authorities such as Hackney and Lambeth.

Mr. Fabricant: Is not it true that 70 per cent. of those going into secondary education with the assisted places scheme come from maintained primary schools? It is simple arithmetic that, if they were not going to private schools with the assisted places scheme, their education would have to be funded by local education authorities. Is it not about time that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) put his short trousers back on, went back to school and learnt some basic arithmetic?

Mrs. Gillan: We want to spare you the sight of the hon. Member for Carmarthen in short trousers, Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend is right. Nearly 70 per cent. of pupils on the assisted places scheme come from maintained primary schools.
The most important fact about the scheme is that 40 per cent. of the assisted pupils come from families with a total annual income lower than —9,874. Some 80 per cent. come from families with an income lower than the national average. Labour Members want to take away that opportunity for children from poor families. They should be ashamed of continuing to peddle their disgraceful policy.

Mr. Pearson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children from Dudley metropolitan borough are currently being educated at schools through the assisted places scheme. [2087]

Mrs. Gillan: Information about the local education authority area from which assisted pupils originate is not collected centrally.

Mr. Pearson: Is it not unjust and unfair that the Government are prepared to shell out millions of pounds to provide elitist private education to a handful of children in Dudley when 4,500 five, six and seven-year-olds in the borough's cash-strapped schools are suffering in class sizes of 30 or more? Does not new Labour's pledge to cut class sizes for youngsters show which party really cares about educational opportunities for all?

Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman had better check up. This is not new Labour, but old Labour. This is the politics of envy. This is the Labour party that says to poor families, "Your children are not going to be allowed to have the chance that our children have had or we have had." The hon. Gentleman should look closely at the assisted places scheme, at the value for money it offers and at the results achieved by the pupils. He should recognise that it is about time the education policies of the Opposition parties started to level up rather than down.

Nursery Vouchers

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will visit Normanton to discuss nursery vouchers with (a) parents, (b) governors and (c) teachers. [2088]

Mr. Robin Squire: No, but my right hon. Friend and her Ministers have discussed the benefits of the nursery education voucher scheme at a number of events up and down the country.

Mr. O'Brien: That reply is obviously disappointing because parents, governors and teachers at St. John's school, and at other schools in my constituency such as Wrenthorpe and Outwood, would like the opportunity to tell the Secretary of State that they want the Government to provide more nursery places rather than spend £3 million on publicity. Parents want nursery places rather than vouchers and publicity on the issue.
Parents would also like the opportunity to tell the Secretary of State that they support Wakefield local education authority's nursery provision for three-and-a-half-year-olds and that they want nursery facilities in the area to be extended. It is disappointing that we do not have the opportunity to tell the Secretary of State exactly what people require in the areas that I represent.

Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman must have misheard or not heard when I said a moment ago that another £165 million will be spent—next year alone—on pre-school education. He quotes a tiny fraction of that money, which is essential expenditure on publicity, as the totality of new spend. I say to the hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members from areas where there is currently high provision that, if the present quality of provision by local authority schools is as good as they say it is, parents will undoubtedly continue to use those facilities. If the provision is not as good as that, parents should have the choice to look elsewhere.

Opposition Day

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

BSE Crisis

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
That this House notes that after the Florence European Council the Prime Minister assured the House that by October the United Kingdom should meet the conditions for the ban to be lifted on the export of beef from certified herds and certain other categories and that by November the United Kingdom should meet the conditions for the ban to be lifted on all beef that can be sold in the United Kingdom; deplores the fact that the ban on the export of United Kingdom beef remains fully in place and that Her Majesty's Government has failed to meet the conditions for it to be lifted within the timetable they themselves announced; recalls that in advance of Florence Her Majesty's Government pursued a policy of non-co-operation which led to a deterioration in relations with the other member states of the European Union, and failed to resolve the crisis for the United Kingdom's beef industry; believes that the measures adopted by Her Majesty's Government following the identification of BSE a decade ago were inadequate and enforcement was unsatisfactory; notes the confusion and delay since the House was advised on 20th March that BSE was considered the most likely cause of a new variant of CJD and the failure of Her Majesty's Government to meet its own targets for the slaughter programme; deplores the hardship and suffering caused to beef farmers and the beef industry; and regrets that Her Majesty's Government has not protected the interests of United Kingdom consumers or producers of beef.
On Monday, the House was entertained to the vision offered by the Government of a world free of trade barriers by 2020. The Foreign Secretary, in a failed attempt to capture the headlines, described this as the Government's "2020 vision". There is, of course, an unreality about a Government who have five months to run setting out their vision for 2020, but there is a wider lack of reality about a Government who have visions of free trade around the globe in the next century when they comprehensively fail to get the ban on exports of UK beef across the channel lifted.
The crisis in the beef industry since the statement of 20 March dominated the proceedings from March to June. Since the House returned, there has been no statement and no debate initiated by the Government. The only statement that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave the House was in response to the private notice question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang).
This is the first full day's debate on the subject, but—many hon. Members on both sides will be aware of this—the crisis caused by the statement on 20 March is still there around Britain. It is experienced by thousands of farmers, by the people who work in the industries that support farming, and by the people who work in the industries that process beef, all of whom are still living with the consequences of the statement of 20 March.
Those people might by now have expected to be out of that difficulty. They might have heard what the Prime Minister said at the victory celebrations on 24 June in this House when he returned from his triumph at Florence. In

that statement, the Prime Minister assured the House that, by October, the Government would have met the conditions for lifting the ban in two stages—beef from certified herds and beef from young animals—and that, by November, the Government would have met the conditions for lifting the ban on all beef that at present is allowed to be sold only in the United Kingdom in order that it could be sold on the continent as well.
The House must agree that October has been and gone, and all those stages of the ban are still in place. Indeed, November is half over. I will cheerfully give way to any hon. Member who believes that the ban will be completely lifted in the next two weeks. Not only have the Government missed the target they set for the lifting of the ban, but I am prepared to have a small bet with any hon. Member that the Minister of Agriculture will not be able to give us the revised target for the lifting of the ban.
Before the recess, the Minister said that he hoped that the ban would be lifted completely by the back end of the year. Perhaps we should ask him what he meant by that.

Mr. Brian David Jenkins: Which year?

Mr. Cook: Indeed. Is December the back end of the year? Will the Minister stake what is left of his reputation that the ban will be lifted in December? If we miss December, will we not be looking down the front end of another year?
I hope that the Minister will tell his hon. Friends the truth—that he has no idea when the ban will be lifted. Far from being able to tell us when he will get agreement to lift further stages in the ban, he now cannot even tell us when he will implement the agreement that he has already secured to lift the ban on the trade in gelatine.
Conservative Members have to face the truth: that they will be fighting the general election with most of the beef ban still in place. That will lead to some interesting questions at their election meetings. The most difficult one to answer will be whatever happened to the Prime Minister's great triumph at Florence. Lifting the ban in stages was the victory of the beef war. If we take that away, what will happen to the victory?
I do not hold the Minister responsible for the beef war. He is held to account for enough without being held responsible for the beef war that he did not invent. The architect of the beef war was the Foreign Secretary, who, no doubt wisely, decided not to be here today to explain why the policy that he constructed has collapsed.
The Minister of Agriculture will recall that, last May, the Government brought in the Foreign Secretary to support him in his negotiations, because of the feeling that his diplomatic skills could be improved by assistance. The Foreign Secretary devised the policy of non-co-operation in Europe, or, as it graphically became known to diplomats, PONCE—a fitting acronym, given the posturing that it involved.
In pursuit of PONCE, the Government halted the work of the European Union by prolonged serial vetoing. They even vetoed measures that were more important to Britain than to the other member states. We blocked a measure that Britain had proposed to cut red tape. We blocked tougher powers of inspection against fraud, although Britain had lobbied for them. We blocked the sending of


a letter to Iran about Salman Rushdie, although the only person who could have benefited directly from it was a British citizen.
We even blocked measures of value to countries outside the European Union that had no part in our quarrel with the continent over the trade in beef. In view of the human tragedy that is currently taking place on an epic scale in Zaire, the House should recall with some sense of shame that, in June, Britain blocked a joint declaration of concern at the rising ethnic tension in that region of Africa.
There has been a cost to Britain of that sustained disruption. I shall give only one example, which illustrates the damage to our relations with Europe. Last January, the Government of Portugal brought forward a resolution in the European Union to condemn Indonesian repression in East Timor. It is a big domestic issue in Portugal, because Indonesia is a former colony and because the people of Portugal have considerable sympathy with the Catholic majority of East Timor.
The British Minister in January requested the Portuguese to withdraw the motion because, at that time, British hostages were being held in Irian Jaya and Indonesia was assisting us in the release of those hostages. It would have been a source of embarrassment for Britain were that resolution to have been pressed. Happy to help, our oldest ally withdrew the resolution.
In the spring, the hostages were released. In June, Portugal brought back its resolution on East Timor, and Britain blocked it under the policy of non-co-operation. The fury that that double-cross caused in Lisbon may partly explain the warmth with which the Prime Minister of Portugal sent a message to our party conference hoping for a change of Government at the general election.
That loss of good will might have been a price that the Government were prepared to pay, if they had won the war. All wars have casualties, and it is victory that justifies the risk of casualties. Conservative Members claimed victory. The Foreign Secretary described Florence as a turning point. The Minister of Agriculture said that it was
a great success, and provides a solid way forward."—[Official Report, 24 July 1996; Vol. 282, c. 369.]
As late as 4 July, the Prime Minister was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair):
Does the Prime Minister still hold to November of this year as the date by which the ban will be completely lifted?
The answer was:
Yes".—[Official Report, 4 July 1996; Vol. 280, c. 1049.]
Of course, to meet that target the United Kingdom would have had to keep its side of the bargain. The most curious part of the Government's mystifying conduct over the BSE crisis is that, having hailed agreement in Florence as a victory, they then proceeded to break that agreement by not keeping their part of the bargain.

Mr. Robert Jackson: The right hon. Gentleman talks about Britain keeping a bargain. If the Government were to introduce a selective cull to implement the Florence agreement, would the Labour party vote in favour?

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the reason why the Government are terrified to

introduce such a cull is that they do not know whether their Back Benchers would vote for it. If an order is tabled, we will consider the details and decide whether it will obtain our support. The hon. Gentleman can hardly ask us whether we will support the order when his Government will not even table an order for us to consider in the first place.
The Minister of Agriculture did agree to bring in a selective cull in June, presumably in the confidence that the hon. Gentleman would support him. Having introduced it in June, the Minister then dumped it in September. Shrewdly, on that occasion, his colleagues recognised that, to sell that breach of contract, he would need more help and guidance than just the Foreign Secretary. When the Minister of Agriculture went to last month's Agriculture Council, he was accompanied not just by one extra colleague but by a phalanx of five Ministers. Some were there to support him and others were there to contradict him. Yet all the Queen's Ministers could not put the Florence framework back together again.
The Minister of Agriculture has talked much, and no doubt will talk again today, about the new scientific evidence that justifies scrapping the cull—mainly the computer-modelling exercise in nature magazine. But the weight that he places on that exercise is not shared by Nature magazine. After his decision to halt the cull, Nature ran a blistering editorial saying:
The role of science is to illuminate political choices not to enforce them. By acting as if it is oblivious to this truth, and to European political reality, the UK Government can only erode its credibility still further.
Before the Minister invites the House to attach the greatest importance to scientific evidence, perhaps he also should attach the same weight to the conclusion of the same scientist, that the Minister's course of action lacks credibility and is out of touch with reality.
The truth is that it is not the scientific evidence that prompted the Government to abandon the cull but the bogus, empty nature of the agreement they reached at Florence. The Minister of Agriculture was candidly honest about that on 14 October. He told the House on 14 October that the case for the cull had diminished because
It has become increasingly clear during the summer that the prospect of other member states agreeing to an early …lifting of the export ban …has lessened."—[Official Report, 14 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 465.]
So there we have it: other member states were not going to agree to lift the ban anyway. I have to ask, how can this be? It is not what we were told was in the Florence agreement. We were told after Florence that decisions would be taken not by the Council of Ministers but by the Commission. We were told that the decision that would be taken by the Commission would be taken on scientific, not political, grounds.
The Foreign Secretary explicitly told me in response to an intervention on 20 June:
It does not need to go before any Ministers or any Government."—[Official Report, 20 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 1028.]
If that was true, how can the Minister of Agriculture now claim that the ban cannot be lifted because some Ministers and some Governments object?
Or is the truth that the Foreign Secretary has absented himself from today's debate because he knows that he has sold the House a false prospectus; that Florence did not


give us a binding framework for progress on lifting the ban; that there was no real linkage between steps that we might take and steps in lifting the ban; and that there never was any serious prospect that the ban would be lifted in October or November, as promised by the Prime Minister?
The public have a much more acute sense of the worth of the Florence agreement. After the agreement, a survey discovered that 83 per cent. of the public believed that the United Kingdom had lost the beef war, and 4 per cent. believed that the European Union had lost the beef war. Even at today's ratings in the polls, there must have been some Conservatives among the 83 per cent. who believed that Britain had lost the beef war.
Yet, breathtakingly, the Government propose to do it all over again, this time to stop the working time directive. The Prime Minister assured us yesterday that the Government would veto the intergovernmental conference unless the law was changed. We shall be treated to some more acts of PONCEing, and pretty empty PONCEing it will be, because the end of the IGC will not be until June next year, and the Prime Minister knows perfectly well that there is a pretty good chance that he will not be there in June next year.
Before I move on, I should just say that, if Conservative Members want to announce in their election addresses at the next election that the Conservative party is the party that will deny people the right to say no to excessive working hours and that will refuse parents the right to insist on holidays to spend with their children, I warn them that there is not a Labour candidate in any constituency who will not dance with delight.
In taking on Europe, the Government are condemning themselves to expose their own weakness. Conservative Members are doomed to disappointment if they think that the electors are keen to be conscripted to another war against Europe. The beef war was the first war in British history in which we picked a fight with the whole of the continent. Previous British Governments, including Conservative ones, have been sensible enough to ensure that either France or Prussia was on our side before going to war. For two centuries, Britain's advantage was held to be in finding the balance in Europe and holding the balance in Europe. Only this Government imagine that the balancing point can be found somewhere in the middle of the channel, between Britain and all the rest of Europe.
In taking on the whole of Europe, the Government have not demonstrated their strength but exposed their weakness and revealed their incompetence—the incompetence with which the Minister of Agriculture gave no prior warning to the Commission or his opposite numbers of the bombshell he dropped on 20 March on the connection between BSE and CJD. I know that the Minister rang the Agriculture Commissioner just before he came into the House on that day. I know that he advised the Agriculture Commissioner that he was sorry that he could not give him prior warning because it was a convention of the House that the House had to hear first before anyone else.
I have to tell the Minister that the Commissioner in Brussels would have found this a lot more convincing if he had not read in that morning's editions of The Times, The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail what the Minister was going to say in the House that afternoon. Plainly, those newspapers had been told before the House of Commons.
The Government also revealed their incompetence by promising an action plan to eradicate BSE and then turning up at the meeting with a four-page sketch that the Spanish Agriculture Minister described as "mierda"; a term which, if literally translated, I am sure you would rule unparliamentary, Madam Speaker, but which was paraphrased by The Daily Mail as "clearly insufficient" They showed incompetence in taking three months following the statement of 20 March—some 10 years after the identification of BSE—to produce a serious, thorough-going programme to eradicate BSE from the herds.
So inept has the Government's response been to the beef ban, a bit of me wonders if it is not just suiting them that the ban is there. The amendment accuses the Opposition of "cynical…opportunism". Words like "mote" and "beam" flit through my mind. I must tell the Minister that there is no worse cynical opportunism than the way in which the Government have seized on the beef ban to blame Europe for a crisis that was of their own making. Indeed, the moment of truth will come if the beef ban is lifted.
Beef sales will only recover not when Conservative Members bludgeon political leaders into lifting the ban, but when they persuade housewives in Europe to buy British beef, which they will never do by threatening a policy of non-co-operation with consumers. The amendment has the sheer gall to accuse the Opposition of ignoring
the restoration of consumer confidence".
That amendment will be moved by the Minister of Agriculutre, the same Minister who told the House on 20 March:
I do not believe that this information—
the information on the link between BSE and CJD—
should damage consumer confidence".—[Official Report, 20 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 387.]
I must tell the Minister that he is still out of touch with reality. The Meat and Livestock Commission reported in October that beef sales were down by 17 per cent. on last year. In Germany, sales are down by 15 per cent. and in Italy by 25 per cent.—even before those countries agree to import any British beef.
Nor is it just Europe that does not have confidence in British beef. More than 50 countries outside Europe have also banned the import of British beef, some of them countries that Conservative Members regard more warmly than Europe, where they speak foreign languages—they include the United States, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

Mr. Rod Richards: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the beef ban by the European countries was justified?

Mr. Cook: As I have explained to the House, it was entirely understandable why—given the ineptness of the Government—that ban was introduced. Ever since the ban was introduced, the Opposition have offered support to the Government in their steps to remove it, even to the extent of giving them the benefit of the doubt during the beef war when they carried out the policy of non-co-operation. What we object to is the failure of the Government to achieve the measures that would lift the ban, and the way in which they deceived the House on the effect of the Florence agreement.
I was about to add—perhaps the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) will wish to ask whether this ban is justified—that even Hong Kong has banned British beef, although I keep reading that the next leader of the Conservative party may be the man who is currently the Governor of Hong Kong. If he stands, presumably, he will not get the vote of the Minister of Agriculture, who cannot even persuade Chris Patten to have confidence in British beef.
The reason why there is such difficulty in restoring international confidence in the safety of British beef is the manner in which, at every stage of the history of BSE, the Government have done as little as possible, as late as possible.

Mr. Michael Lord: The right hon. Gentleman has been asked two direct questions, neither of which he has answered. He is making a clever speech that the House is enjoying in some ways, but he is not dealing with the problems facing a major industry in this country. Does he support the slaughter of thousands of healthy animals, with no guarantee that the ban will be lifted at its end?

Mr. Cook: Hang on. We were told that the Government secured the undertaking in Florence that, if they slaughtered the animals, the ban would be lifted. The hon. Gentleman is disagreeing with those on his Front Bench, not with me. We are asking the Government why, having sold that agreement to the House, they have ratted on it.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Surely the right hon. Gentleman realises that British agriculture is facing its gravest crisis this century. Will he tell the House and the country simply and clearly whether he believes that the ban is justified?

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that question again. We have repeatedly said that we regard British beef as safe and that we do not accept the ban, and we have repeatedly supported the Government in all the measures that they said would lead to a lifting of the ban.
After all that support, we are told that the ban cannot be lifted in the timetable that the Government promised, partly because they have done too little, too late, to combat BSE, starting at the very beginning, with their disastrous decision on taking office not to regulate the feedstuffs industry to a higher standard, on the grounds set out in their consultation paper:
It is the wish of the Minister that in the present economic climate the industry itself should determine how to produce a high-quality product.
The industry promptly responded by phasing out the chemical solvents that might have prevented BSE from getting into the food chain.
The Government long refused to accept the risk to public health from BSE, as exemplified by the famous observation of the present Secretary of State for the Environment that
nobody need be worried about BSE, in this country or anywhere else.

Fortunately, he was moved to another job just before we discovered how worried we ought to be.
Finally, even when Ministers introduced regulations to control BSE, they failed to enforce them, and as late as last year, 48 per cent. of slaughterhouses and 17 per cent. of rendering houses were in breach of BSE controls; and, in March this year, eight feed mills were still found to be breaching regulations to keep animal protein out of feedstuffs. The crisis in our beef industry was made in Britain. The genius of Her Majesty's Government is that, instead of solving the first crisis, they have paralleled it with a second crisis, in our relations with Europe.
I began by referring to the human hardship caused by the collapse of the beef market. Farmers, especially hill farmers, watched their way of life being put at risk, and workers in the processing industry watched their jobs disappearing. They are watching this debate and will note how we vote; we owe it to them to vote against a Government who have failed them, and we owe it to ourselves to vote against the Government, because we know that they deceived the House in June over the deal they brought back from Florence, and that they have broken the commitment they gave about when the ban would be lifted. All hon. Members with any self-respect must resent that deception, and I urge them to join us in the Lobby tonight.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
congratulates the Government on the action it has taken to deal with the BSE crisis which has led to the restoration of consumer confidence; welcomes the package of support the Government has provided to the beef industry; notes the significant improvement in the measures to deal with the disposal of animals over 30 months of age and the progress made towards meeting the criteria set out in the agreement for lifting the European ban on British beef; and urges the Labour Party to drop its cynical political opportunism at the expense of many who depend on this important industry.
I begin my response to the debate with at least one assertion with which we can all agree: BSE has been a disaster for British agriculture and a tragedy for all those whose lives and livelihoods depend on a prosperous beef sector. Against that background, we have a right to expect that all those who participate in a debate on BSE, whether in this place or in the newspapers or elsewhere, should do so in a rational, considered and sober way, because scares, alarmist headlines and ill-judged political point scoring damage consumer confidence. That reinforces the prejudices of those who do not wish to see the ban lifted and thereby damages the interests of British farmers.
Prominent among those whom I most condemn is the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). Her comments on 20 March, when she raised quite unjustified scares about the risks of feeding beef to children, did a great deal to damage consumer confidence in Britain.
In addition, I very much regret that on 22 March the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) gave his support to the imposition of a beef ban, making our task harder, reinforcing the position of member states when they did not deserve to have their position reinforced.

Dr. Gavin Strang: Let me correct that from the Dispatch Box for the second time. We have


been round this course before. When the French Government took action immediately following the announcement to stop beef and animals moving into France, I said that I liked to think that had the situation developed in France, a British Government would have done the same. That is quite different from the worldwide beef ban. The French Government's action was justified. What was not justified was the subsequent worldwide beef ban. The French Government were talking about a temporary cessation of trade in the crisis, which was obviously justified. We have made it clear throughout that the worldwide beef ban is not justified, and the Minister knows that.

Mr. Hogg: That is a case of wriggle, wriggle, wriggle.
The hon. Gentleman made two statements. He made a statement on 24 March, which he has summarised reasonably accurately, but he omitted to mention the press release that he put out on 22 March, which is the one to which I was referring, when he said in terms:
A temporary cessation in the movement of British cattle, beef and beef products into the continent may be wise at this time.
He did not thereafter qualify it.
It is interesting to note that the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in the first of the observations that he made on a ban in the course of this afternoon's speech, found a justification for the imposition by member states of a ban on British beef and beef products, and that is a profoundly unsatisfactory state of affairs.
That brings me to a point that I wanted to make about the right hon. Member for Livingston. I have seldom heard a more self-indulgent speech made in the House from the Front Bench. By adopting the case of member states he makes it much harder for us to secure a lifting of the ban. Furthermore, everybody in the agriculture industry will have noticed that the right hon. Gentleman could not or would not say whether he would support a cull order. In truth, it was the most irrelevant and least illuminating speech that I have heard for some while. It surprises me that it was thought right to allow the shadow Foreign Secretary to move the motion when the Opposition agriculture spokesman is sitting beside him.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the Minister support a cull order?

Mr. Hogg: I shall shortly tell the House exactly where we stand on that matter.
Any discussion of BSE must start with the proposition that British beef is safe. I say that for at least four reasons. First, the only British beef on the United Kingdom market is from the younger animal, and that provides a high degree of assurance. Secondly, all BSE suspects are removed from the food chain. Thirdly, we have established in the slaughterhouses the most rigorous and comprehensive set of controls of any in Europe, with the result that all parts of the carcase capable of harbouring the infected agent are stripped out and destroyed. Fourthly, we have removed from the food chain all the meat and bonemeal that is believed to have triggered BSE in the first place.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: No, I shall not give way at the moment.

For all those reasons, I can say with complete confidence that British beef is safe and that the consumer can eat it, confident as to both its quality and its safety. That is not only my view or that expressed by the leading experts in the United Kingdom, but the view of the World Health Organisation and its veterinary equivalent, the Office International des Epizooties, and of Jacques Santer and Franz Fischler.

Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Hogg: I shall give way in a moment.
It is therefore all the more unreasonable—indeed, it is unlawful—that member states should have imposed the ban in the first instance and that they should have defended its continuation thereafter. The ban is not based on scientific criteria, nor on a proper consideration of the objective facts. It was imposed and is now adhered to because of internal pressure in member states. I say that the single market is being disrupted for reasons that are wholly improper.
I give way, first, to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend).

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Was it not an absolute disgrace that contaminated feed was still being exported from this country as late as June this year? How can we possibly expect the French and the other continental countries to believe that we have done everything we possibly can to eradicate the disease, when we continued to send them poisoned feed?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the facts. The controls that were put in place at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s related to the feeding of meat and bonemeal to ruminants. They did not preclude the feeding of meat and bonemeal to farm animals that were not ruminants. What was being exported was, therefore, also lawful in this country. We reinforced the controls this spring when we prohibited the feeding to all farm animals of rations containing meat and bonemeal. The objective of that was to prevent any risk of cross-contamination.

Mr. John Townend: In view of what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, does he agree that this country has been double-crossed by our European partners in respect of the lifting of the beef ban, just as we have been double-crossed in respect of the social chapter opt-out? Does he agree that they are enjoying taking British export markets and that they have no intention of lifting the ban for several years?

Mr. Hogg: I shall turn shortly to my assessment of the position of member states. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall deal with his question when I reach that point in my speech.

Mr. Nick Ainger: rose—

Mr. Barry Sheerman: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), but then I must make progress with my speech.

Mr. Ainger: The Minister has just spent some time describing how all the specified bovine offal has been


removed from carcases and so cannot enter the human food chain and I agree with him that it is safe. Can he therefore explain to the House why the Government entered the Florence agreement?

Mr. Hogg: I now come to the Florence agreement in my speech. I believe that that agreement represents a triumph of the negotiating skills of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, because it provides a framework within which the ban can be lifted. The basic structure of the Florence agreement is that the United Kingdom undertook to take certain steps and, in return for that action, the European Union agreed to a progressive lifting of the ban.
We have already implemented all but one of the five Florence preconditions. We have withdrawn meat and bonemeal from farms and feedmills; we have introduced cattle passports; we have tightened yet further our slaughterhouse controls; and we have destroyed more than 850,000 cattle under the over-30-month scheme. Against that background we had every reason to expect an increased willingness on the part of member states to move on the ban.
Thus far, the signs have been disappointing. My clear impression, based on many discussions within and without the Council and from all that I have seen, heard and read, is that member states are facing strong internal pressures. Like us, they are having to assess the latest scientific evidence. That said, they do not appear to be in a position to agree to a rapid and substantial lifting of the ban, which was the basis for our commitments made at Florence.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I will give way in a moment.
It seems that the most promising way forward might be to seek a lifting of the ban in respect of specialist herds and—more difficult—in respect of cattle born after 1 August 1996. In that context, it is worth noting that some parts of the United Kingdom are well placed in that the incidence of BSE is low and traceability is good.

Mr. Charles Wardle: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I will give way to my hon. Friend, then to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and then to other hon. Members who have been attempting to intervene.

Mr. Wardle: What my right hon. and learned Friend has to say about Florence and Europe is illuminating, but I hope that he will spend part of his speech talking about the plight of farmers in this country. Does he accept that the 10 per cent. reduction in the 30-month slaughter compensation has hit many farmers caught waiting in the slaughter queue, through no fault of their own, at the very time of year when feed costs are going up and they are

already having to use winter feed supplies? Given all the chaos over which he has presided, why hit farmers when they are already down?

Mr. Hogg: I will tell my hon. Friend a great deal about the support that we have given to the beef sector. I am sure that he will be encouraged by the speed at which we are processing the backlog.

Mr. David Trimble: As the Minister has said, it has been obvious for some time that the solution to the ban will be through a United Kingdom-wide certified herd scheme under which, at present, many Ulster herds and some Scottish herds would qualify immediately. What is the position with regard to that scheme? Has a scheme been formally submitted to the Commission or is it being held back by a dog-in-the-manger attitude on the part of some others?

Mr. Hogg: It is true that some parts of the United Kingdom—the hon. Gentleman mentioned Ulster—are particularly well suited to benefit from certified herd or beef assurance schemes. That is based in part upon traceability and the low incidence of BSE in the Province. We have discussed with the European Commissioner and his officials various concepts surrounding the beef assurance scheme and the certified herd scheme. They have approved the beef assurance scheme for the United Kingdom market. We have not yet submitted detailed working papers, which would be the step preceding formal proposals by the Commission for a lifting of the ban to be put to the Standing Veterinary Committee.

Mr. Robert Jackson: My right hon. and learned Friend knows of the anxiety within the farming community that the Florence agreement should be implemented by our partners and, therefore, by ourselves. My right hon. and learned Friend has mentioned his clear impressions and the signs that our partners will not honour their commitment to the Florence agreement. Surely the simplest thing would be to ask them whether they would implement their commitment to the agreement if we do what we have to do under the terms of that agreement.

Mr. Hogg: If we were to ask a question in those terms, we would simply be referred back to the Florence agreement. When we move forward with particular proposals, we must judge what sort of response we will get. It is always difficult, but we must judge that by people's words and deeds, both public and private. It is on that basis that I have made my statement.
Madam Speaker, you looked at your watch, so I shall make progress and shall give way to other hon. Members later.
It is important that we should not lose sight of the scientific facts. Those facts were usefully brought together by Professor Anderson in his article in Nature magazine, to which the right hon. Member for Livingston referred in somewhat disparaging terms.
There are two key points. First, BSE will be eradicated from the British herd by 2001 or thereabouts. The number of cases is falling year on year by about 40 per cent. The high point was in 1992, when we had 36,700 cases. That figure fell in 1994 to 24,000 cases; in 1995 there were 14,000, and in 1996 we expect about 8,000. Secondly,


there are no credible cull policies—that is, policies involving a size of cull that the House would accept—which would bring forward the date when BSE will be eliminated, or decisively accelerate the rate of decline.
I shall spell out that point a little more clearly. We have already had around 160,000 confirmed cases of BSE. Before the disease dies out in 2001 or thereabouts, we are likely to have around 8,000 more cases. A cull policy involving 128,000—that being the number agreed at Florence—or, indeed, any cull that would commend itself to the House, would still leave us with about two thirds of the anticipated number of confirmed cases. There are no public health arguments for a substantial cull, because the measures to which I have referred already address that question.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: rose—

Mr. John Greenway: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), and then I shall give way to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Mr. Greenway: My right hon. and learned Friend said—accurately, I suspect—that other member states seemed unprepared to honour the Florence agreement if the cull went ahead. There is growing support among farmers for the cull to go ahead so that we honour our side of the bargain. Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what the European Commissioner's view is? My understanding is that the European Commissioner, Franz Fischler, has throughout been helpful to my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government in trying to find a way of resolving this problem. It should be possible to get agreement, at least with Franz Fischler, on a way of resolving the conundrum that unless we have the cull, the ban will not be lifted. That is increasingly what more of our farmers think.

Mr. Hogg: I have always found the Commissioner to be straight and direct. I am grateful to him for the candid way in which he has always dealt with me.
The position of farmers has changed. In the summer and early autumn of this year, the National Farmers Union was strongly opposed to an accelerated cull. It has modified its position, but it has an unduly optimistic expectation of how far the ban would be lifted. The important issue that it has to face is whether it wants a full cull for a very limited lifting of the ban. That is a matter of great importance to them and to the House.

Mr. Dalyell: On the latest scientific research, Nature has not addressed the question of what is being done to find the basic causes. That was addressed by Dr. Bob Will of the neuropathogens unit and the CJD research surveillance unit at the Western general hospital in Edinburgh, who came to a meeting of 130 farmers and butchers which I chaired in my constituency. What is the basic science, especially in relation to the suspicions about prions? Will the Government make a statement about how they are setting about the basic science, because they

cannot be sure about 2001 or any other date unless more is known about the root causes, and that may require more expenditure on scientific research.

Mr. Hogg: There are a number of possible causes of BSE in the United Kingdom herd, but I believe that the most widely accepted view among experts is that the feeding of meat and bonemeal containing the remains of sheep triggered the condition, although other causes have been suggested.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister said that Franz Fischler had always been candid with him, but did not convey to the House what view Franz Fischler had expressed when being candid. Has not Franz Fischler gone on record as saying, as recently as two weeks ago, that it will not be possible to continue lifting any part of the ban until the condition of a selective cull is fulfilled? Will he now present proposals to fulfil that condition? If he does, we will not oppose him. Will he now present proposals for a cull?

Mr. Hogg: We now have the humorous situation of the right hon. Gentleman's having said one thing in his speech and another in his intervention. But he is right: Commissioner Franz Fischler has always been very direct with me, and he has always said that a cull must take place. That statement, however, conceals as much as it discloses. The rate of lifting of the ban, the rate of implementation of the cull and the stages that will be delivered in response to a lifting of the ban are matters for discussion in the European Union and the European Commission.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: No, I want to make some progress. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I do not think that anyone can accuse me of not having given way. I think that I have given way to eight or nine hon. Members so far.
Let me say something about maternal transmission. The House will recall that, early in the summer, scientists advised that the calves of affected dams were more likely to develop BSE than those of unaffected dams. On further consideration, it has become clear that we may not be seeing maternal transmission of the disease in the true sense. What we may be seeing is transmission of a susceptibility to contaminated feedstuffs, which is a different matter.
The difference is important. If there is true maternal transmission, certain cull policies might be justified on that basis. Quite different conclusions would flow from a decision that what was being transmitted was, in fact, a susceptibility to contaminated feedstuffs. I hope that we shall have a view on that important matter within a few months.
For all those reasons, we have not presented the House with proposals for a full-scale cull. It is important to see the outcome of the European Union's scientific deliberations on the latest evidence. It is also useful to have the opportunity of listening to the views of hon. Members—

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: In that case, will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: —in particular, on the balance to be struck between likely progress on the ban as I have outlined it,


and the implementation of a selective cull. And, of course, we have not completed the clearing of the backlog under the over-30-months scheme.

Rev. Ian Paisley: rose—

Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman serves no interest by shouting in that way. I give way to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley).

Rev. Ian Paisley: In his reply to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the Minister said that he had discussed the certified herd scheme with the European authorities, but had not yet submitted papers to them. Will he promise us that he will take that course, and submit the papers?

Mr. Hogg: I think that there may be some misunderstanding. I have discussed certified herds and the beef assurance scheme with the Commission and the Commissioner, and they have had papers; but there is a difference between having papers and having the formal working proposals— the documents referred to in the Florence documents—which triggers the process that causes the Commission, we hope, to go to the Standing Veterinary Committee. The Commission and the commissioners have not had those formal working papers.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: rose—

Mr. Roy Beggs: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I am going to give way to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs).

Mr. Beggs: My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) have both pressed the Minister. My question is simple: why have the papers not been completed and forwarded for consideration?

Mr. Hogg: There is a distinction between discussing the proposal for certified herds and discussing the beef assurance scheme. We discussed the concept of the scheme and the scheme itself in the context, initially, of the UK because it is an exception to the over-30-month scheme. We had approval from the Commission to go ahead with that. It is also a step in the lifting of the ban, but moving on the formal lifting of the ban must be triggered by a cull, by bringing forward specific proposals following a cull, and by putting them to the Commission, on the basis of which it can lay formal proposals to the Standing Veterinary Committee. We have not yet done that.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: rose—

Mr. Andrew Welsh: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I have already and on various occasions explained why we have not yet done that. I turn to the over-30-month scheme, which has been the subject of a certain amount of comment in this place.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: I am making some progress. I have seldom seen a more excited gentleman than the hon. Gentleman.
I remind hon. Members of the origin of the over-30-month scheme. Its first purpose was to provide an extra safeguard for public health. It also met the joint demands of supermarkets and the National Farmers Union. I agreed with those views and persuaded our European Union partners to adopt the scheme as an EU measure, funded by European funds.
The over-30-month scheme has important and beneficial consequences. First, it has reassured the consumer. We must not overlook the fact that, having dropped significantly, the consumption of beef is now back to around 80 per cent. of its pre-March level. Secondly, the scheme has underpinned the beef market. Had we not slaughtered about 860,000 beasts under the scheme, the beef market would be much weaker.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: I will make some progress and then give way.
It is true that there is a backlog of animals to be culled, but in the past four weeks the position has greatly improved. The register that we have compiled shows a present backlog of around 320,000 beasts. We have taken steps to improve throughput: we have altered the rendering mix and brought more capacity on stream. On 8 October, I announced a further £16.6 million for extra cold storage. Taken together, those steps have enabled us to increase the weekly rate of slaughter to 59,000. The register will enable us to give priority to registered animals—to animals now on the backlog—and on that basis we hope and believe that we will he able to clear the backlog on a UK basis by around Christmas.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that much of what he says will be deeply disappointing to beef farmers in Scotland who, only on Monday, met Franz Fischler and came out of the meeting urging him to put pressure on the Minister to secure the implementation of the cull, in accordance with the Florence agreement? Does the Minister not acknowledge that Scottish farmers are ready, willing and able to start implementing the cull now, and that that could be the first phase of the British implementation of the Florence agreement? Why will he not agree to that?

Mr. Hogg: The House and everyone concerned with the debate have to ask themselves this: what is the likely response to the imposition of the accelerated slaughter plan? The best judgment that we can make at the moment is that member states are facing very strong internal pressure from their consumers, farming unions and others not to agree to a rapid and substantial lifting of the ban. Therefore, it seems to us, probably, that the best way forward is to concentrate on the specialist herds and possibly cattle born after 1 August. What this House has got to do is to decide whether the balance is the correct one, it being less favourable than that which we anticipated, and had every reason to anticipate to be the case at the time of Florence.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack).

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. He will know from his


visit that farmers in Staffordshire take a similar line to that just mentioned by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). I understand my right hon. and learned Friend's dilemma, but can he not seek an early meeting with his colleagues and a firm undertaking from them that if the accelerated cull is implemented, there will indeed be an assurance that the ban will be lifted?

Mr. Hogg: It would be highly desirable of course that, if we had to implement any accelerated cull policy, we did so against the background of an agreed timetable for the lifting of the ban, but the House needs to be honest with itself and with the country: we are not going to get from the European member states a precise timetable for the lifting of the ban. Therefore, the Government and others have to make a judgment as to what the member states will do if we take certain steps, including undertaking an accelerated cull.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I give way to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).

Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Minister will be aware that European Commissioner Fischler has said clearly that he will make special arrangements for Scotland and the north of Ireland because of the protections available there. Will the Minister not put the Commissioner to the test by asking for those special arrangements for Northern Ireland and Scotland? He will then find out the commitment of the Commission. He will help the Scottish beef industry and help to save the Northern Ireland beef industry, while learning what, in effect, he suspects.

Mr. Hogg: I have not in fact heard the Commissioner express himself in precisely the terms that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, but I have already made the point that there are some parts of the United Kingdom that are particularly well placed, having regard to the low incidence of BSE and traceability. That fact is well understood by the Commissioner.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and then I must make some progress.

Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that what he has just said could be interpreted as weasel words? Furthermore, does he accept that, in the light of everything that has gone on in the past few months, the most important thing is that we get an absolute guarantee from the member states? It is not a matter of judgment, but a matter of practicality that we get an absolute guarantee from them that if we honour our side of the Florence agreement, they will lift the ban. If not, there will be serious trouble from those on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Hogg: I do not think I justify the criticism of having used weasel words—I stated the position absolutely plainly. I say to my hon. Friend that I might wish that it was otherwise, but the position is that we

are not going to get from the member states an absolute guaranteed timetable leading to dates when the ban will be lifted. We are not going to get that.

Mr. Robin Cook: rose—

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman will just have to contain himself for the moment. I am not going to pretend that we will get such a guaranteed timetable because if I did so, I should be deceiving the House.

Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has now said twice that it is not possible to get an absolute timetable out of the European member states. Can he therefore explain why the Prime Minister said as late as 4 July that the ban would be lifted by November?

Mr. Hogg: The Prime Minister also made it plain that it was not possible to get a timetable from the European Union—which has always been the case. I am glad to have an opportunity, once again, to reaffirm that fact. Inevitably, we must make a judgment on the likely response to any action that we may think fit to take within the framework of the Florence agreement.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hogg: No; I shall make some more progress now.
The over-30-month scheme has been an important way in which to reassure the consumer and to underpin the beef market. It is, however, only one strand in an extended policy of support. Since 20 March 1996, the Government have committed huge sums in support of the beef industry and the related sectors. I shall deal with the latter point first.
We concluded that we could not assist everyone who had suffered loss: there were too many of them, and the costs would be too great. Therefore, we concentrated financial assistance on those links in the chain whose survival we judged to be essential, and which would survive only if Government funds were made available. That is why we provided transitional aid of up to £118 million for the rendering industry and up to £100 million for the slaughtering sector.

Mr. Robert Key: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that one part of the industry that has not received any assistance is the cattle head deboners, who effectively have not only had their business stopped but had their property sterilised, if not confiscated. That has been deeply distressing and has caused much unemployment, and it is irrational. Is my right hon. and learned Friend prepared to meet—or to allow one of his Ministers to meet—representatives of cattle head deboners to find a sensible way forward on the issue?

Mr. Hogg: I know that that matter causes considerable concern to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members. The issue was, today, the subject of an Adjournment debate, in which my hon. Friend spoke. The Government's position was clearly outlined in the debate by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I do not wish to imply for a moment that we can move from that position. If my hon. Friend would like to bring a delegation of representatives of those who have been affected to my


hon. Friend the Minister of State, I know that he would be extremely glad to see them. However, I do not wish to arouse expectations.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the Minister agree that the beef crisis has borne more heavily on Northern Ireland—because of its high percentage of imports, at more than 77 per cent.—than on any other part of the United Kingdom? Does he also agree that the best method of testing the bona fides of those who imposed the ban would be to put forward our best case—which, undoubtedly, is Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland has the highest degree of animal traceability and the lowest incidence of BSE, and its agricultural producers have suffered to the greatest extent. Therefore, will the Minister press Northern Ireland's case as a pilot scheme for testing the bona fides of those imposing the ban?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. and learned Gentleman constructs a very powerful case for Northern Ireland, which I understand. We have to approach the matter collectively, having regard to the entirety of the United Kingdom. I realise that the facts mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman constitute a powerful case, which is already known to the Commission and to some member states. I shall ensure that those arguments are always borne in mind by all those who have to make decisions on those issues.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I feel that I must give way to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman); he is getting so excited.

Mr. Sheerman: I thank the Minister for giving way at last. He is aware of the pent-up frustration of the farming community, and has described some of the hardships it is suffering. However, the frustration is not only over Government inaction. According to figures I received yesterday from the Minister's colleague, since March there has been a 15 to 20 per cent. drop in the market price of beef. According to figures that I received from the Library today, however, there has been only a 1 per cent. drop in the retail price of beef. Farmers and consumers are being cheated. Will he explain why? Farmers and consumers would like to know.

Mr. Hogg: Market prices are determined by the market, but the hon. Gentleman is right that there has been a substantial reduction in the price of beef sold for consumption. I am glad to say that that has increased somewhat recently and now stands at about 100p a kilo, which is still about 20 per cent. down on this time last year. He brings me naturally to my next point.

Sir Michael Spicer: As I understand it, my right hon. and learned Friend seems to have been saying in the past 20 minutes or so—I may have got him wrong, but I am sure that he will correct me if I have—that we did not get out of Florence what we expected. We are honouring all our side of the bargain, including being prepared to offer the accelerated cull, in return for nothing. In fact, he has identified public opinion

around Europe as being such that it has hardened the position of other countries against us. Is it not perhaps time that we started to contemplate a new bout of disruption, a sort of double whammy of disruption for when we get to Dublin?

Mr. Hogg: Policies of disruption are—and should always be—policies of last resort. We never thought that we had a timetable in the Florence agreement. We established a process. At the time of Florence we believed, and had every reason to do so, that if we fulfilled our commitments there would be a rapid and substantial lifting of the ban. It has become plain over the summer, for the reasons that I have given, that, at least at the moment, member states are unable to deliver the rapid and substantial lifting that we all expected. I think that that is due to the internal pressures in their own countries.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: I should like to proceed and explain the support that we have given to the beef industry.

Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: No, I am going to make some progress.
Since June we have committed something like £263 million in support, both direct and indirect, to beef producers. That includes the July package of £109 million. I announced in September an increase of £60 million in the hill livestock compensatory allowance cattle rates. Last October, the Agriculture Council agreed aid worth £50 million in the United Kingdom, which we intend to spend in ways that will be of particular benefit to Buckler producers. I announced in Bournemouth further aid worth £29 million. Today, I am pleased to announce that we shall be spending that £29 million on a second beef marketing payment scheme, covering the period between July and September.
The measures that I have described demonstrate two things: first, the absolute commitment of this Conservative Government to the needs of the rural economy and the future of British agriculture and, secondly, that the Labour motion, one not even moved by the Labour agriculture spokesman, is a fraud and a sham and should be rejected with contempt.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I must, as ever, declare an interest since I have a personal position in a family farming business. I also have a constituency interest, since I represent many hill farmers in the Lammermuir hills. The Minister talked about fraud and a sham. I am afraid that farmers and people working in ancillary industries to the beef industry regard him as the fraud and the sham. We have just heard an awful speech from him, which was based on the unsustainable premise that our European partners are as untrustworthy as he has demonstrated himself to be over recent months.
After 18 years, I have learned to expect the worst from the Government. The problem that we are facing today meets all three dictionary definitions of the word "shambles": a mess or muddle; a butcher's slaughterhouse; a scene of carnage. That is what the industry is facing.


Since the crisis erupted in March, we have had a succession of schemes, debates, statements and palliatives, but we are still in a multiple crisis. The word "crisis" is overworked in the House, but it is for real on this occasion. There is a crisis of animal health, which now appears to be connected with a new form of CJD that has killed 14 people, possibly because some infected cattle got into the food chain in the late 1980s. There is also a crisis of consumer confidence around the world—tragically, with a consequent economic crisis that has engulfed an industry employing 600,000 people in the United Kingdom, mainly in fragile rural areas.
Even leaving aside the point that the disease should not have been allowed to develop in the first place, the Government must stand condemned for letting things progress from bad to worse and on towards unmitigated disaster during 10 years of prevarication and ineptitude.
The priorities must surely be to eradicate the disease and to restore consumer confidence in beef. Both require the fullest co-operation with our European Union partners, but the Government's political agenda requires confrontation with them whenever possible, so we started off with the infantile beef war earlier in the year.
There is a consensus almost everywhere, except in the Government, that a selective, targeted cull of the cattle most likely to be infected with BSE is desirable to speed up the decline of the disease and to help to restore consumer confidence. The whole House has accepted that in previous debates and I made the point in a debate as early as 28 March. Since then, the Government have been all over the place. They had a self-destructive confrontation with the European Union. Then they decided to implement a selective cull as the basis of the Florence settlement of 22 June. Then they decided to renege on that settlement.
Meanwhile, the beef industry and associated industries, employing a total of 600,000 people, are on the rack. Butchers, hauliers, farmers and many others are facing ruin. We now have a serious consequential animal welfare problem because large numbers of unmarketable cattle are stuck on farms. It will be difficult to find feed and housing for them during the winter. Problems will certainly arise from that.
The Minister mentioned the over-30-month slaughter scheme which is working, after a fashion, better in Scotland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. However, there are serious delays in some areas. In September, the Government cut the compensation payable to farmers under the scheme by 10 per cent., to add grief to the businesses caught up in the queue. The scheme is, by definition, not targeted. It is a pretty crude measure to take stock off the market. We have the scheme, but there is no sign of progress towards reassuring consumers in export markets, let alone a lifting of the ban.
The Prime Minister announced the Florence agreement proudly to the House at the end of June.

Mr. William McKelvey: The triumph.

Mr. Home Robertson: The triumph, as my hon. Friend calls it. The framework referred to in the agreement stipulated the action that the United Kingdom is committed to taking to accelerate the disappearance of the disease. When in place, that action will bring about a step-by-step relaxation of the export ban.
The terms could not have been clearer. Without action on a selective cull of cattle likely to be infected with BSE, there will be no end to the export ban. That was accepted by the industry, by the European Union, by the House and, ostensibly, by the Government but, eight months on, nothing has happened.
The Minister mentioned his doubts about the willingness of the European Union to keep to the time scale suggested. Why have the Government made no move to keep their part of the bargain on the time scale? As far as I can make out, the Minister of Agriculture has done damn all in England and Wales.
There has been some posturing by the Scottish Office, but it seems that only Northern Ireland will4 be able to fulfil the Florence criteria. I had the privilege of visiting the Northern Ireland Agriculture Department a couple of weeks ago with colleagues on the committee of the British-Irish parliamentary body and I was impressed by what I saw there. The Department has developed an elaborate computerised record system for all cattle in the Province to help to promote quality assurance and to eradicate other diseases. Happily and coincidentally, that development should make it possible to make rapid progress with a selective cull in Northern Ireland because the Department can identify the relevant cattle.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, rather more than two years ago, Aberdeen and Northern Marts which, as he knows, is one of the chief marketing and slaughter companies in Scotland, commissioned a feasibility study into a traceability system for Scotland? According to Brian Pack, the chief executive of Aberdeen and Northern Marts, such a system could be implemented in a matter of months. However, the Government expressed no interest in it. Does the hon. Gentleman have any comment to make on the fact that, at no time during the BSE crisis, have the Government shown any interest in introducing a traceability scheme in Scotland?

Mr. Home Robertson: I doubt whether the scheme could be implemented in a matter of months, but I believe that it is deplorable that the Government have not even begun to look for the cattle concerned and have not put together anything like the quality record system that exists in Northern Ireland. I agree with the thrust of the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
It will probably be necessary for the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture to locate about 2,000 cattle which will need to be slaughtered under a selective programme. The Northern Irish could probably do that immediately, which is to the credit of the Northern Ireland Office. I deplore the fact that neither the Scottish Office nor the Ministry of Agriculture is moving in the same direction.

Mr. Mallon: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the north of Ireland. He said that the north of Ireland fulfilled the Florence criteria. In reality, there are 1,700 cattle, instantly traceable, which, I am told by the authorities, could be dealt with in one day if the Government asked the EU Commission to make such an


arrangement for the north of Ireland. That is what is standing between the beef industry in the north of Ireland and its potential demise.

Mr. Home Robertson: The point is clearly made. The preparatory work has been done in Northern Ireland and it should be done in Scotland, in Wales and in England.
Characteristically, the Scottish Office has been blowing hot and cold on the issue. The Secretary of State suggested that he would achieve great things when he attended last month's Agriculture Council meeting. Interestingly, he wrote to hon. Members on 23 September to report on progress. He said:
my officials are working closely with those in the SNFU to ensure that we can progress preparations as far as possible in advance, so that we are in a position to start culling in Scotland if circumstances permit.
We understand that that would have involved about 4,000 cattle.
Presumably, such a cull would have been carried out with a view to getting an early lifting of the export ban for the whole of Scotland or at least for clean specialist beef herds, mostly in the hills and uplands of Scotland. The letter was good news. It seemed that the intention was to start the process of selective culling to fulfil the Florence conditions and thus to make it possible to restart beef exports from Scotland, which are vital for the Scottish economy.
However, I am a naturally suspicious soul, especially where the Scottish Office is concerned, so I tabled a parliamentary question last week to the Secretary of State just to find out how the Scottish Office was getting on with finding the cattle in the cohorts that were likely to be infected with BSE and that would need to be culled to fulfil the Florence criteria.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), replied:
Data on all herds with confirmed cases of BSE are held at the Central Veterinary Laboratory. This data can be used to identify the herd of birth of BSE cases—and hence animals subject to the same feeding regimes; that is, the birth cohorts. To identify all these at-risk animals, it is necessary to visit the herds of origin, to identify the cohort animals remaining in such herds and finally to determine the present location of cohort animals which have moved to other herds. This involves detailed inspection of records. In May of this year, the CVL made an estimate that a maximum of 127,000 cohort animals were present on farms in Britain, of which some 4,300 were in Scotland. Given the need for on-farm visits and reference to on-farm records, it is impossible to give a reliable estimate of how long it would take to identify all these animals."—[Official Report, 11 November 1996; Vol. 285,c.55.]
The agreement was made in June and now, five months later, the Department has not even started to set up the record system, never mind identifying the cattle that would need to be culled in order to fulfil the Florence criteria. It has not even started to look for the cohorts and individual cattle that are likely to be infected in preparation for fulfilment of the agreement that was reached in June.
There may be a problem with confidentiality at the Central Veterinary Laboratory. The CVL is either unable or unwilling to disclose or disseminate information about infected animals and the farms where they originated. For goodness sake, surely the Government should be able to address administrative points of that nature.
In England and Wales, the Department has not even pretended to start preparatory work for the cull. I appreciate the reluctance in the dairy industry to lose milking cows, but the disease is largely rooted in the dairy herd, so that is probably the main sector where it will have to be eradicated. The Florence agreement is all we have. Why are the British Government sabotaging the agreement that they trumpeted in June?
The Department should address another practicality—the discrepancy in the EU rules whereby in other nations in the European Union, including the Republic of Ireland, individual herds are deemed to be infected, whereas in the United Kingdom it is the farms that are deemed to be infected. Therefore, farms in France, the Republic of Ireland and elsewhere where cases of BSE have been identified can take the straightforward step of slaughtering cattle to wipe the slate clean and start afresh, but the current rules make that impossible in any part of the United Kingdom where the land of the farm is flagged up as being infected. That will have to be addressed and I should be grateful if the Minister could do so in his reply to the debate or in writing.
Let me conclude by quoting a mild-mannered neighbour of mine, Mr. Sandy Mole, the president of the National Farmers Union for Scotland. He represents people who would normally tend to support the Conservative party, but he and his members and those representing the other industries that are directly affected by this disaster feel betrayed and furious.
On 2 October Mr. Mole said:
The recent outbreak of xenophobia led by the usual gang of anti-European fanatics has put the Florence Agreement in real danger… We must not allow people's livelihoods to become embroiled in a festival of political point scoring.
That is precisely what was happening within the Conservative party at the time.
On 8 October, Mr. Mole said:
We have lost patience with the political wrangles which stand in the way of progress being made to lift the export ban on beef. The time has come for positive progress to be made. The Prime Minister made a deal: he must stand by it … Scotland's people will not stand for this sort of discrimination"—
that was in favour of Northern Ireland—
which would so blatantly be based on the Parliamentary arithmetic of keeping fringe interests quiet. The Secretary of State for Scotland is in no doubt about the strength of our views on this subject.
Finally, Mr. Mole said on 11 October:
In all this Government muddle we are trying to get across the simple message that the selective cull must begin or there will be no progress in lifting the ban anywhere in the United Kingdom. It is high time John Major took a grip of this bumbling shambles of a policy before some agreement is forced on Scotland by civil servants sitting behind desks in London.
That was strong stuff from the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland. He is right to suspect that Scottish interests may be being sacrificed.
It is time that the Secretary of State for Scotland stood up for that country. The National Farmers Union of Scotland is right to be furious at the betrayal of the Florence agreement. That is the only way forward for the British beef industry, which employs 600,000 people directly or indirectly. Therefore, I urge the Government to stop deceiving the House, the country, the industry and the European Union and to begin to make serious progress towards implementing the Florence agreement.

Mr. Tom King: The briefest reading of the Opposition motion, together with the announcement that it would be moved by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), gave the clearest sign that today's debate would be more about politics than about the serious issues surrounding BSE, which deeply concern so many of our constituents and constitute a major crisis for the agriculture industry. The right hon. Gentleman had the gall to open his speech by saying that the matter had been too little discussed in the House and claiming the credit for being the first to launch a full-day debate on the subject. Where has he been all these months, when a number of us—I pay tribute to some hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—have been present and debating the issues?
The right hon. Member for Livingston then had the nerve to make a speech that had little to do with BSE but much to do with his political agenda. I thought that he might have done the House, and the agriculture industry, the credit of being better briefed. He did not even know whether his party was in favour of the accelerated cull and he had to be briefed afterwards. It was not his finest parliamentary hour and his whole body language showed that perhaps he also realised that.
The House will know that I have not been an uncritical admirer of the handling of the crisis. I understand that, since the original, unhelpful leak in the newspapers that precipitated the announcement on BSE, my right hon. and learned Friend the Agriculture Minister and his colleagues have been faced with a massive problem. I recall the panic at the start that affected the markets. Auctioneers even rang farmers to tell them not to bring any cattle to the market and nobody had any expectation about when the auctions might be resumed. It is against that background that I review the problems.
The crisis has posed major problems. I do not regard the Minister of Agriculture and the team of staff at the various official levels of the Ministry of Agriculaire as uniquely equipped to handle the crisis. We need to have lean and efficient Ministries, not over-manned Ministries, but when they are faced with a crisis of this kind, there should be a system that can give them the reinforcement that they need to tackle the problems. That is an important general point of public administration. The crisis has challenged the Ministry of Agriculture, the Intervention Board and the industry.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said that hauliers had had their livelihoods destroyed, but other hauliers have never made so much money in their lives. The crisis challenged the industry, as I have said, but the Government said that we must all pull together to face the crisis. The Prime Minister made a pledge and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture repeated it. Our determination was to save the industry. That is what we sought to do and that is what I believe that we have achieved. The tragedy is that, in certain parts, the industry has not pulled together. I am sure that I am not the only hon. Member who has heard complaints about people who have exploited the system and taken advantage of the crisis. Preferment has been given in the abattoirs and various deals have been done in which certain people have exploited the situation. That has led to the necessary introduction of the registration scheme and my local

farmers union believes that that will deal with the problem, together with the speed-up of the over-30-month cull.
I hope that we shall hear further details about how we shall deal with the further arisings of over-30-month cattle when the original backlog has been cleared, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to say something about that when he winds up. I also hope that we have come through the worst of the mischief and that the new arrangements will ensure greater fairness.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Agriculture Minister referred to a figure of 850,000 for the cull. He referred to a further 320,000 that will come through the registration scheme. I should like to know whether that is the number of cattle still waiting to be culled or whether it represents the number of cattle that has been registered, of which perhaps some 100,000 have been slaughtered in two weeks at 50,000 a week. If the latter is the case, the number will already have been significantly dented; I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to confirm that.
Against that background, the fifth tenet of the Florence agreement—the accelerated cull—takes on a different dimension. If we have slaughtered 850,000 cattle and if we are going for some 250,000 more, we shall move towards 1.2 million. It has been suggested that, because some of the cattle in the cohorts that might have been part of the accelerated cull have already gone under the present culling process, the actual requirement of the accelerated cull might be less than 10 per cent. of what we have already slaughtered.
Sentiment in my part of the world is now changing. We have not implemented the accelerated cull—the fifth ingredient in the Florence agreement—because the full capacity has been taken up by the over-30-month scheme. It is only by the second or third week of December or by January that we shall be in a position, allowing for any further arisings of cattle not in the backlog but now over 30 months, in which we can embark on an accelerated cull.

Mr. William Ross: rose—

Mr. King: I doubt that I shall be able to answer any question on the subject, but I shall give way.

Mr. Ross: I am trying to be helpful to the right hon. Gentleman, as usual. Is he aware that in Northern Ireland, where we formerly had some 2,000 cattle that would have been covered by the accelerated cull, that number is now down to 1,700 because 300 have already been disposed of through the on-going slaughter policy? Northern Ireland is not as far advanced as the rest of the country and if we apply the same statistic to Great Britain, his figures are likely to be correct.

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have, from my personal experience, the highest regard for the records that are kept in Northern Ireland. They are why the hon. Gentleman is able to give us such specific information about the situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Paul Marland: As we have fulfilled four of the five conditions that were laid


down at the Florence summit, is it not irritating that we have received no co-operation from our European partners over some way to lift the ban?

Mr. King: I was not prepared to support an accelerated cull in July. I thought that the question was premature and we did not know what further scientific evidence would arise in the following months. We heard much about maternal transmission, although I am not quite sure what the position on that is now. Other developments took place and now the question arises for serious consideration. We should now address that issue seriously with the Commission. I understand the problem that my right hon. and learned Friend the Agriculture Minister has now, because I appreciate the problem of what I call the gelatine retreat. My understanding is that we are now clear on gelatine, on the authority of the European Union and the Commission, which has the authority to lift the ban, but the other member states—I stand to be corrected on this point—have all found ways to prevent any gelatine from being admitted to their countries. That is obviously a most unsatisfactory situation and one that we need to address.
The more painful aspect of the present situation is not just the position in individual member states but the nature of the worldwide ban. Some alleviation of that ban would help with the opening of markets which are important to our farmers.

Mr. Salmond: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the frustration of Northern Ireland Members? In Northern Ireland, animals for the selective slaughter can be identified. In Scotland, we have no backlog in the 30-month scheme. We are hanging around while our industries are in crisis waiting for the Minister of Agriculture to decide to support the selective slaughter. Why cannot Scotland and Northern Ireland get on with the job and why will not the Government support that?

Mr. King: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's intervention reinforces the belief in the west country that the allocation of animals for slaughter was unfairly tilted. We in the west country still have a substantial backlog. That is not entirely a serious response. The hon. Gentleman has just trodden on a painful grievance of the west country, where a significant number of animals are awaiting slaughter. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) will know why I say that. We now need to challenge the European Union and the Commission to move towards the accelerated cull and lift the ban.
I have thrown some brickbats around today, but I also want to pay some tributes. I pay tribute to the British people. The figures on beef consumption are encouraging. In the west country and in other areas, people have shown a determination to support British agriculture. That is one of the things that has helped to ensure that consumption of beef is as high as it is, although we obviously want to see it improve, and to see the price of beef improve.
I pay tribute to the Government. They have faced many difficulties. The right hon. Member for Livingston said that we had done too little too late. He said that to a Government who have committed some £3,000 million to this process over three years. In their tongue-tied way, the Opposition criticise the Government. I challenge the hon.

Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), when he replies to the debate, to say that, if the Labour party had been in government, there would have been the slightest chance that they would have invested such sums.
My farmers have many problems and I have fought many battles with them and for them in this crisis. There was panic when farmers looked at the cattle on their farms and wondered whether they could sell them and when auctioneers rang up and told them not to bother to bring cattle to market because there was no market for them. People wondered whether they might have to bury their cattle. The Government's action and the funds that they have put in have saved the industry. It is about time that that was said. There has been too much knocking of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister and endless criticism. The markets are living. Farmers can take cattle to the markets and sell them. We are moving through the problem. It is easy to jibe and criticise, but it is right that that tribute and recognition should be given.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), not so much because of his peroration but because of his introductory remarks. He rightly said that we have discussed the BSE crisis in the House on a number of occasions. I am reminded of the text on which I was brought up:
Joy shall he in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
I welcome warmly the Labour party's recognition—at long last—of the severity of the crisis, and I remind the House that on four previous occasions it has been conspicuous by its absence.
On 13 May, seven eighths of Pie Labour party failed to support us in the Division Lobby when we made a careful analysis of, and gave specific warnings about, the dire consequences of mishandling the crisis. Again on 21 May—the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) referred to this—the leader of the Labour party not only failed to support us, but shamefully endorsed the ludicrously counter-productive measures that the Government proposed, no doubt simply because he was scared by the jingoism of the tabloid press. It was sad, and I hope that the words of the right hon. Member for Livingston this evening will be taken as an indication that the Opposition will not be sucked into those counter-productive war games again.
On 25 June, after the ignominious collapse of the non-co-operation tactics at Florence, the Labour leadership again failed to support us here in the House and in the Division Lobby; in relation to both the ham-fisted Hogg diplomacy and to the escalating shambles over the cattle cull, nine tenths of the Labour party, including its leader, failed to vote.
On 24 July, when we had our last chance before the recess to inject some justice and urgency into the cull confusion, all but a handful of Labour Members simply went home. That showed how important they thought the issue was and how interested they were in rural areas. I note that the right hon. Member for Livingston failed to vote on every one of those occasions, so I take it that his appearance for a short time in the debate this afternoon is but a momentary lapse of attention to other matters. The


only mention of BSE in major speeches in the debate on the Queen's Speech was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).
Avid listeners to "The Archers"—I suspect that you are one, Mr. Deputy Speaker, being a cultivated man—will have noted the comments in this week's omnibus edition. Ruth bemoaned the failures of the Government, but Phil rightly remarked that the official Opposition had "kept pretty quiet". The victims of Government incompetence deserved more sustained, consistent and robust support.
I draw attention to the people who have been directly affected by the on-going crisis. I have here a report from the Western Morning News entitled "BSE tragedy as farmer is crushed to death by unsold bulls". It says:
A farmer has been killed by his own animals—which he had been unable to sell because of the BSE crisis.
Cohn Burley, 35, a divorced father of three young children, was found dead by his father at the 100-acre farm he worked on his own at Higher Trebarveth, Ponsanooth, near Redruth.
Investigations are being made into the death of the popular and hard-working man, which has shocked the farming community where he lived, but it appears he was crushed by 16 21-month-old bulls which had remained on the farm after the price dropped out of the market because of the BSE crisis.…
But his uncle, John Burley, said last night: 'The BSE scare has caused his death. Those bulls would have been off the farm by now if he had been able to sell them.'
That is but one hideous consequence of the failure to manage the markets through the summer, but many other beef and dairy producers throughout the country have suffered, albeit not so dramatically or tragically, from the inadequacies of market support and of the over-30 month scheme ban.
Every week since 20 March, here at home, the dire situation with regard to the cull has been more important to farmers than has the Government's diplomatic calamities abroad. Playing war games to attempt to divert attention from the shambles at home has not conned anyone in the industry. The lesson must surely be that we must now concentrate on cleaning up the situation at home. As the right hon. Member for Bridgwater rightly said, the discrepancies in the effect of the cull in different parts of the country is a national disgrace, and mismanagement of the cull has been a disaster for which the Government must take the blame.
In the six months since it was put in place, the direction and management of the OTM scheme has demonstrated the height of incompetence. At an early stage, Ministers admitted to me that neither MAFF nor the intervention board were in charge of the scheme. In the first few weeks, the plan was to put the whole operation out to competitive tender. As hon. Members will know, every local authority is forced to go out to competitive tender even on tiny contracts. That would normally have been the case—as Ministers subsequently admitted—under both EU and UK regulations, but it was quietly dropped. I challenged Ministers, who replied that it was dropped as a result of emergency time scales. The Government's original application list for abattoirs and collection centres was 200 long, but at a stroke it was reduced to 21.
The dead hand of the cartel of big business that dominates this industry guaranteed that it kept the profitable business for itself, and how profitable it was. The £87.50 price that the businesses extracted from Ministers-remember, there was no competitive tendering—proved to be four times the economic cost

calculated by the Government's auditors. Even when the price was eventually reduced, Ministers only cut it in half and failed to backdate it for two months, as had been agreed.
The extortionists demanded their pound of flesh. On 17 July, I took representatives of small abattoirs to meet the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who assured us that he was in charge. He said that he had taken over responsibility from MAFF, which had proved to be incompetent—the Prime Minister had admitted as much—but no progress was made for months, until the past few weeks.
Many hon. Members who have watched the situation unfolding may suspect that there is a hidden agenda. Just before the crisis broke on 20 March, the Meat and Livestock Commission was hawking around a plan to streamline the abattoir industry. Is it a coincidence that the larger groups are now fattening themselves very nicely at the taxpayer's expense, while smaller firms are being forced out? From Scotland to Devon, Skegness to Greater Manchester, and Wales to Northern Ireland, the meat industry is being cut to ribbons before our very eyes.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who I regret has left her place, told European Standing Committee A this morning that the industry is being reshaped by the crisis. Is this what she means? Is it deliberate? Do the Government approve of the changes that are taking place? Surely the lesson is that the failure of the Minister, MAFF and the Government to take charge has rewarded the cartel of the biggest operators at the expense of everyone else, including the taxpayer.
There is now the prospect of greater incineration and freezing capacity coming on stream, but it looks as if we are to have a repeat performance of the farce that has already occurred. The Government have indicated to a small number of large operators that they will be given preferential treatment. A very small number have been given letters of intent, without any promise that they have the plant or equipment necessary or that they can carry through their promises. In addition, there is no promise that there will be anything in it for small operators. How they have been selected is a mystery; there has certainly been no open and competitive tendering. Indeed, the operators have so fallen down on what is being asked of them that they are asking other, smaller operators to come to their aid.
Incineration South West, a smaller firm that serves much of my county of Cornwall, has not been allowed to participate fully and directly, despite having the most modern plant and full approvals. Mr. Russell Peake, the principal of that company, came with us to meet the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 17 July, and was promised urgent and favourable consideration of his application. He has since obtained all the local approvals, which came through this week. His is a respected and conscientious firm that is much used by farmers throughout the south-west.
However, the big boys of Yorkshire Water—whose waste disposal company apparently put in a bid—received a letter of intent from the intervention board. It has now been allowed to accept a contract without having plant available—so much so that it has come to Incineration South West at the other end of the country to get the adequate and modern plant to do the job, and is prepared


to subcontract the work. The big operators will flourish at taxpayers' expense, while smaller, better equipped, more local companies will be frozen out. Such is the profitability that Yorkshire Water is prepared to go to the other end of the country to use a small company. It will still make a large profit.
The unlucky farmers who have not yet been able to move their over-30-month cattle from their farms are facing higher feed and housing costs with each week that goes by, and the costs are escalating as winter comes in. In addition, they are facing a 10 per cent. cut in the figure —initiated by the Government in Brussels—to be paid in compensation, and they will be hit by an extra 3 per cent. cut as a result of the revaluation of the green pound. The National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association have today demanded that the Ministry restores in full the value of those unjustified and illogical cuts.
The Minister has told us that the cull backlog will soon be cleared. He has said outside the House that the backlog will be cleared by Christmas day, but I do not remember his mentioning that date today. When the Minister of State replies to the debate, I hope that he will say firmly that that Christmas present is guaranteed and that the date still stands. Farmers are now entitled to expect the Minister to stand by his forecast and to keep his promises. I hope that, if he is not able to do so, he will restore immediately and in full the compensation that farmers have lost.
A number of beef producers are in dire straits, particularly those who are wholly dependent on their suckler herds. On 24 October—after thousands of farmers had come here to meet us —The Daily Telegraph published a revealing report, headlined "Be grateful for BSE aid, Hogg tells farmers". The article contained an interesting description by one of the Minister's senior officials of a letter from the Minister to beef and dairy producers. The official said that the letter was intended to be a
stop whingeing and count your blessings message".
If that was the intention, the Minister should resign; if the senior official did not understand his Minister's intention, he should resign. The president of the NFU said in response that
the Government's mismanagement of the beef crisis
was a "catastrophic affair". I have been in public life for 32 years, and I cannot remember an occasion when I or my farming community have been more angered by a ministerial announcement. Anyone would think that the farmers had knowingly, willingly and callously taken risks that had caused this crisis.

Mr. King: How is that comment to be reconciled with the letter from the NFU today which states that, despite the recent difficulties, the NFU is
grateful for the sympathy, substantial practical assistance and extensive public expenditure
devoted by the Government to tackling this unprecedented crisis in British agriculture?

Mr. Tyler: Nobody is saying that we are not grateful for anything we can get, but the right hon. Gentleman knows full well that—for the first time in living

memory—the council of the NFU has passed a motion of no confidence in the Minister. I take that motion seriously, as I do other comments by the president of the NFU that have been quoted in the newspapers.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend invite Conservative Members to read the second page of the NFU letter, which states that the Government have done very little and that the NFU is unhappy? In other words, the first page of the letter shows the courtesy that we would expect from the NFU, but the second page gives us the reality.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and the Country Landowners Association—a traditional ally of the Conservative party—has made equally trenchant criticisms. I find this attempt to blame farmers and put the obligation on them despicable. They have been powerless as the cull mismanagement has deepened. As victims of the catastrophe, they deserve better than the whingeing self-pity so evident in the letter from the Minister.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Can he tell us who is responsible for BSE?

Mr. Tyler: It is certainly true that the conspiracy between certain big commercial organisations and those who approved their products caused farmers unwittingly to use dangerous products on their farms. The farmers cannot be held responsible for that, just as the hon. Gentleman cannot be wholly responsible for the pet food that he gives to his beloved pets, to which he refers occasionally in the House.
In the meantime, the Government must stop repackaging the compensation sums that they claim to be making available. For example, once we were able to analyse—and the farmers were able to identify—the precise nature of the supposed £40 million that was announced at the Conservative party conference, it turned out that less than £10 million in new money would reach the producers.
The forthcoming decision on hill livestock compensatory allowances will be crucial, because if there is not a substantial increase, especially in the ceilings that are put on the payments for cattle, there will be no adequate response to the deepening crisis in less-favoured areas. We need a substantial and sustained increase immediately—not next spring—for those in the disadvantaged and severely disadvantaged LFAs, especially to meet the crisis in the suckler herds.
Last week, the Midland bank report forecast a one eighth drop in the profitability of the agriculture industry as a whole—but that disguises a much deeper crisis in the livestock sector, as the industry is bolstered by a relatively happy situation in the cereal sector. There is worse to come. The lesson from the report must be that this is no time to put income tax cuts before the survival of a vital industry.
Much has been made in the debate this afternoon of the outcome of the Florence summit. I was surprised that the Minister made much play of the fact that we could not control the time scale, but did not refer to the Prime Minister's statement that
It is now up to us to meet the conditions for lifting the ban" .— [Official Report,24 June 1996; Vol. 280, c. 21.]


That is how he kept hon. Members of the Euro-sceptic tendency in their place. He said that the time scale from then on was in the hands of the British Government and that we were no longer the victims of the whims of the French and German conservative Governments. The Minister did not mention that this afternoon—and we heard nothing about it from the Opposition Front Bench.
The Prime Minister specifically promised that the over-30-month cull backlog would be cleared by the end of October. I know that Roman emperors used to change the calendar for their convenience, but so far that has not happened here. He further promised that that would enable the accelerated slaughter scheme for potentially risky cohorts of cattle to be set in motion from the end of October—but here we are, well into November—and that the timetable was in the Government's hands. He bought off his Euro-sceptic fanatics, who suspected that his belligerent tactics on the continent had been a total failure, and said that the Government would be able to make the running from then on.
We now know that all those promises were worthless. Specialist beef producers throughout the United Kingdom are furious at being misled. I spent two and a half weeks in Scotland in September, meeting hundreds of beef producers and their union representatives, and I was left in no doubt that they are anxious that progress be made on the selective cull as quickly as possible. Before the BSE bombshell in March, 20 per cent. of their output was exported. I know the case that has been made for Northern Ireland; indeed, I referred to it this morning in European Standing Committee A.
Instead of producing the comprehensive working document on how the cull could work which the Minister and the Prime Minister undertook to produce after Florence, the Minister went back to the Council of Agriculture Ministers with nothing. The Commission and other member states want a good wad of paper that they can deal with and discuss at a technical level to ensure that the veterinary and medical significance is fully understood, but the Minister put the matter straight back into the political arena and invited a complete rejection. Perhaps that is what he wanted, because the Government could then blame Europe for what went wrong.
The Minister was sent back from Florence to do his homework, but he reappeared with pathetic excuses for more dither and delay. He was sent away with a flea in his ear, and the following day Commissioner Brittan had to try to pick up the pieces.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that the working document promised at Florence is now in an advanced state. We need a clear strategy covering the whole United Kingdom, to re-establish the British beef herd as BSE clear. The Minister again admitted this evening that he has not as yet any firm proposals for certified herds; that must surely be an integral part of the working document.
We need a phased, step-by-step BSE eradication plan, region by region and/or herd by herd. That is essential to rebuild confidence at home and abroad.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): We heard the Labour party's current position this evening although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said, it was not entirely clear on the

accelerated or selective cull. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make it clear exactly where the Liberal party now stands on that.

Mr. Tyler: I am delighted to give the assurance that if the Minister produces a working document that sets out in detail and in practical terms an accelerated cull that will do the job, we will support it. So far, he has failed to do so, and his Ministry and the Prime Minister have failed to deliver. It is no wonder that people at home and abroad are beginning to distrust their promises and forecasts.

Mr. Paul Marland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyler: No. I have already taken longer than I intended.
In answer to our debate on 13 May, the Parliamentary Secretary promised that the mature beef assurance scheme would be
up and running by June."—[Official Report, 13 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 735.]
It is now nearly eight months since we first suggested that necessity, and still the Ministry has failed to produce a workable, reliable scheme. Its first attempt was patently inadequate —it failed to impress European Ministers or the Commission, or to meet the facts of agricultural life here. For example, any link with holdings rather than with herds is irrational, unless Ministry scientists are reversing their previous advice and saying that BSE can be transmitted through the soil.
Ministers have managed to sour relationships with all our European partners and with the farming unions, so progress is painfully slow.
The House should consider carefully the admission in October by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that
in an emergency—which this is—you have to think the impossible.
I invite the House to compare the Government's response to this crisis with that of the Thatcher Government to the Falklands invasion in 1982, when with all-party support and within seven days the task force was mobilised. The current Government have taken seven months to get to the starting block. Under this Administration, the task force would never have left port.
If this is an emergency, why not seek emergency powers? Why not requisition plant and take control back from the Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers and the United Kingdom Renderers Association, by which Ministers have admitted being held over a barrel? The federation's memorandum of 23 May warned its members that if the way in which the over-30-month scheme was being mishandled became public, the Government might decide to
take control of the cull".
Liberal Democrat Members have been ready and willing from the outset to try to achieve a consensus on the priorities. On several occasions, representing as we do rural Britain at so many levels of government, we have offered to work with Ministers to seek solutions. They have insisted on blundering on alone.
I notice that the Minister is in deep conversation with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). Perhaps he is seeking alliances in that respect, but he has


made no attempt to talk to parties representing major livestock areas in this part of the country and on this side of the Irish sea.
I refer in particular to the family in my constituency of the late Robert Cowburn of St. Columb Road, in the heart of Cornwall. The coroner judged his suicide to have been the direct result of the hopeless situation in which the Government's mishandling of the crisis had left his beef herd.
Surely it is, even now, not too late for Ministers to swallow their pride and adopt a non-partisan national approach to this continuing national emergency.

Mr. John MacGregor: Like the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), I begin by declaring an interest in that I am a director of a company which has a subsidiary company which deals with feed mills and feed. It is a small part of our total turnover, but it is nevertheless there. I also have a much more general constituency interest.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister is not currently in the Chamber, but I understand, perhaps more than most, how immensely difficult it is to develop reasoned actions in handling these immensely difficult issues, when so often politics, emotion and alarmist headlines can dominate.
I shall not go over the background of the past few months—others have done that— but I start, as my right hon. and learned Friend did, by re-emphasising, as I think should be done every time we have a debate on this issue in the House or discuss it elsewhere, that British beef is safe.
It is fundamentally important that my right hon. and learned Friend started with that and re-emphasised it. Nothing can do our farmers more good than to keep thumping that message home. In my part of the world there is now robust acceptance of that message, and it has done a great deal to bring confidence back to the market.

Mr. Tony Banks: Did the company with which the right hon. Gentleman has an association ever produce cattle feed that contained animal protein?

Mr. MacGregor: The company was acquired only recently by the company of which I have recently become a director, but I believe that rigorous measures were in force from 1989 to deal with the feed mill issue. I have seen a great deal of the documentation that it produced for its employees to ensure that the original 1988 measures were adhered to.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister emphasised that British beef was safe, but the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) did not do so until he was asked a question. Had he not been asked a question, he would not have mentioned it at all. That leads me to the conclusion that what he was about this afternoon was playing party politics rather than trying to deal with the real situation.
Two issues now concern my farmers. The first is the reduction in the payments under the compensation scheme. What particularly angered them was the fact that

it was not their fault that a number of cattle on their farms did not get into slaughter in time, and that therefore there was an element of retrospection in the way in which the matter was handled. I understand that the problem was that, because of the registration scheme, there was no way of identifying which cattle came into that category. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister of State could confirm that when he replies, because it is the issue which, until recently, predominated in the discussions that I have had.
The main emphasis now is on the continuing uncertainty in relation to some aspects of the overall policy. The current progress on the 30-month slaughter scheme and on registration is immensely helpful. It has done a great deal to remove much uncertainty. The key area of uncertainty now is the accelerated and selective slaughter scheme, on which I want to concentrate.
I underline the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend, that we must be certain that we will benefit from the accelerated scheme before he embarks on implementing it, especially given the background that the rational case for it is weak. It is not scientifically justified, and it certainly does nothing to assist in dealing further with the food safety issues, which have all now been addressed and fully carried through by my right hon. and learned Friend.
Not only that, but the measures that I introduced as Minister of Agriculture, and other measures taken since then, have all led to the position in which the beef is safe. Therefore, the scheme is not scientifically justified from that point of view, and the recent measures that were taken after the statement of 20 March make that clear.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman says that the arguments for the second slaughter programme are weak, yet it is part of the Florence agreement, and when the Prime Minister returned from Florence in June he trumpeted that agreement, and the Minister of Agriculture said that the agreement was a great success and provided a solid way forward. Are not we going back on that agreement?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall come to that point later, because it is relevant to what my right hon. and learned Friend was saying this afternoon about how he assesses the mood in the European Council of Ministers. The case is not strong, and the point that I am making now is that we should not embark on it unless we are sure that we will get the benefits from it.
In addition to the cull not being scientifically justified, according to the Oxford Nature research, to which reference has already been made, we are already on course to eradicate BSE, as my right hon. and learned Friend made clear this afternoon. We believe that the measures that have been taken to deal with BSE will work and are the right ones, and that we are on course to eradicate it by 2001, or whatever.
An accelerated slaughter scheme would accelerate that by only a few months. So, again, it is not in itself justified in dealing with the problem. It will also mean that a considerable number of healthy, non-BSE-infected cattle will be slaughtered unnecessarily. It will also involve a substantial cost to the Exchequer and, just as significant—from the industry's point of view, more significant—a devastating and possibly unnecessary impact on many


farmers who have built up their herds after decades of hard work and now feel that they will have been cruelly dealt by if they see all that go by the board.
If such a scheme were to add to consumer safety, it would be justified, but it will not. We know that the measures that have already been taken over the years, including all the measures in the past few months, are the right ones to deal with consumer safety. Even the right hon. Member for Livingston admitted this afternoon that British beef is safe. Therefore, it is not justified from that point of view.
The accelerated slaughter scheme could be justified—I come now to the point—in terms of the cost to the industry and the taxpayer only if the benefits exceed the costs. That means not just lifting the ban, on which we seem to have focused this afternoon, but also seeing exports re-established. Those are two different things, and both are necessary.
What my right hon. and learned Friend said this afternoon about his assessment of the position in the EU is most important. Only he can judge the attitude in the Council of Ministers and the attitude of other Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) referred to what I think he called the gelatine test. So far, the failure of the gelatine test is not very encouraging. Therefore, my right hon. and learned Friend is right to be concerned to ensure that we will get the benefits if we go ahead with the scheme.
I was going to say that I suspect that there may be a hardening of attitude among some Ministers in other European states towards their part in fulfilling the Florence agreement —my right hon. and learned Friend nearly went as far as saying that, to some extent, there has been that hardening of attitude—and that therefore they may also be considering tightening the conditions further or raising new ones. If so, my right hon. and learned Friend is right to be cautious, and should resist and put the responsibility where it clearly lies.
My right hon. and learned Friend has already made the point that four of the five steps in the Florence agreement have been taken, which is significant progress. We need to be convinced that, in taking the fifth step, we will get the returns that are necessary for our farmers.
I am aware, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater said, that the numbers in the cohorts may be down from the 120,000 as a result of the 30-month scheme. Obviously, that will be the case. The numbers will come down. Therefore, in principle, the costs and the effect on the industry will be less if we go ahead with the scheme. The danger is that new conditions might be raised and those numbers therefore increased. That is why I support my right hon. and learned Friend's approach to the matter—it is right from the farming point of view.
My right hon. and learned Friend said that one way through might be to begin the scheme with the specialist herds, and possibly cattle born after 2 August 1996. That is a sensible way to proceed, because we can thus test whether the European Union will respond as it ought to. My right hon. and learned Friend needs to be sure that the European Union ban will be lifted and that no other types of restriction will be imposed on our exports—all the issues that are starting to emerge in respect of the gelatine test—before he embarks on the full ban scheme.
The House should reflect on this point: suppose we started on the scheme, but failed to get the right response from the European Union? We would have a very

different debate from this one, and our farmers would feel very let down. The guarantees must be clear-cut and absolute. My right hon. and learned Friend's current way of tackling the issue is right, and, if he does not get those guarantees, he should announce that the scheme will not proceed. The sooner a decision is reached within the European Union, the better.

Mr. Tony Banks: Unlike previous speakers, I have no financial interests to declare. I do not speak on behalf of the farmers of Newham. For the benefit of those hon. Members who think that I live in a concrete jungle, I should point out that many cattle once wandered on Wanstead flats, which is in my constituency, and it was a delight to see them. I have not seen them around recently, but I suppose that they have gone the way of all flesh.
I want to say a few words about the welfare of the creatures we are discussing tonight, which are being slaughtered in large numbers. The House is clearly overwhelmingly concerned about the welfare of farmers. I can understand that—farmers have votes, cattle and other animals do not. Indeed, if animals could vote, I am quite sure that I would have become Prime Minister by now.
I was appalled by the figures read out by the Minister—860,000 slaughtered so far, a backlog of 320,000 waiting to be slaughtered, we have now reached a weekly slaughter rate of 59,000, and that is all a matter for great congratulation. As far as I am concerned, it represents nothing more than a concentration camp regime for cattle.
Why are all those animals being massacred, and for what purpose? We have heard that there is no timetable from the European Union for an end to the ban—there is no end in sight, and no one can give any clear indication of whether there will be an end at all. How many cattle will have to be slaughtered? It might be that the European Union will not be satisfied until the whole national herd has been wiped out. In achieving that end, vast numbers of completely healthy cattle will be unnecessarily massacred. That is appalling from an economic point of view, but from an animal welfare point of view it is obscene.
The other point in the Minister's speech that appalled me was the fact that, so far, this exercise has cost the British taxpayer £263 million. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) talked about a conspiracy. I find it strange that, despite the fact that there was clearly a man-made cause of the disease which led to the crisis, no one will be prosecuted. No one will be blamed. We will not be able to recover any of that money from those responsible.
I hold farmers partly responsible—it is not necessary to have a great deal of knowledge to know that there will be a price to pay if herbivores are fed animal protein.

Mr. Tyler: What proof does the hon. Gentleman have that the average livestock farmer had any idea that animal protein was an ingredient? They were told only that there was a protein ingredient and they were usually told that it was fishmeal, even if it was not.

Mr. Banks: Even if it was fishmeal, that would not have been appropriate. When does the average cow eat fishmeal if it is grazing in a field? If any animal protein


is fed to a herbivore, there will be a price to pay. I might add that that is only the thin end of the wedge. If we consider all the ways in which we are interfering in nature for the sake of food production, we shall see that there are all sorts of problems in the pipeline, but it will be years before we find out how horrible our future might be.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I entirely agree with some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It is unethical, immoral, wasteful of money and unnecessary that all those animals should be slaughtered; but—bearing in mind the recent intervention from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)—surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that it was the European Union that encouraged increased agricultural production? The use of protein led to that end, so the European Union is to blame.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman could no doubt find a convenient way to blame the European Union for bad weather, or any other ill. No one can claim that they are totally innocent or that their hands are clean—no one, that is, except dedicated vegetarians like me, but that is of little consolation.
Human interference in nature worries me greatly, and it is still happening. We are currently dealing with one crisis, but how many more are waiting to be addressed as we interfere more and more with nature in trying to get higher and higher productivity? Look at the pesticides and herbicides we use, the poisons we pump out, and the way in which we genetically engineer fruits and vegetables. Nature is extremely unforgiving, and either we or our children and grandchildren will have to pay the price for our actions.
Let me return to the subject of animal welfare. We are approaching the winter, which brings colder and wetter weather. Even at the accelerated rate of slaughter, there will clearly not be enough housing on farms for the animals. How many animals will be left out in the fields in the winter months? Many farmers say that they cannot afford the extra £10 to £14 per week needed to feed animals through the winter. If farmers are able to bring their cattle in, welfare considerations come into play if those animals are kept in overcrowded conditions —the problems of mastitis, lameness and pneumonia will emerge.
We have to ask this question: if farmers know that cattle are waiting to be slaughtered, will they feed them properly?

Mr. Winterton: Yes.

Mr. Banks: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can give the House that assurance, given how many farmers there are.
Will farmers be ready and able to meet the high veterinary bills resulting from problems of overcrowding? Farmers will be looking at an asset of diminishing value, so we have to ask ourselves whether they will be prepared to invest in it. I cannot believe that all of them will.
Apart from welfare problems on farms, there are reports of serious problems involving marketing, transport and pre-slaughter conditions. Around one third of cull cows are sold through markets. Last week, "Newsnight"

showed a west country market selling cull cows to a dealer who was transporting them to Yorkshire for slaughter, yet there was an abattoir next door to the market. The abattoir in question was receiving cull cows from Yorkshire. What the hell is going on? Why are those cattle being moved around?
Nigel Taylor, a vet who saw those animals at the market, was appalled, and said that the animals could be "distressed and disturbed". The programme suggested that the over-30-months scheme had been hijacked by dealers, who paid backhanders to slaughterhouses to get their animals to the head of the queue. The Government have acknowledged that problem by introducing the new registration scheme, and I hope that we shall have regular reports on whether the scheme is addressing those abuses.
There are eye-witness accounts of cows calving as they wait their turn in the slaughterhouse. In September, one person saw about 60 cattle in a slaughterhouse at Crick in Northamptonshire. The animals had come from a market and were supposed to have been killed on the Wednesday; but the Ministry had called a halt to the killing, so they had to wait until the following Monday before being slaughtered.
Several animals were painfully thin. Others had udders that were grossly distended—they obviously required milking, but, of course, abattoirs do not have the facilities to milk cows, so the cows spent their last five days in severe pain. The matter was reported to the Ministry vet, whose response was, "What on earth can I do about it?" Others report overcrowded abattoir lairages with animals up to their bellies in muck. The staff say that they have no time to clean out the facility because, as soon as one lot is slaughtered, another lot comes in.
Let me talk about the calf slaughter scheme, officially known as the calf processing aid scheme, which was set up by the European Union four years ago. So far, it has been optional for Governments, but it could become compulsory. Farmers are paid to slaughter the young calves under the scheme. We adopted the scheme in late April, when the European Union refused to import our male dairy calves for their veal crate farms. It is a shame. It must be bad enough for the calves to find out that they are going to a veal crate, but when they think that there is a chance of being rescued, they find out the EU will not take them, so they are slaughtered. What appals me is the waste of animal resources as well as the welfare considerations.
To date, about 300,000 calves have been slaughtered under the scheme. It was originally intended for male dairy calves only, but it was extended to beef breed calves early this month, so numbers are likely to be increasing rapidly. The calves have to be slaughtered by the time they are 20 days old—it was originally 10—and the abattoir is paid £103.47 for each calf slaughtered. Further profits can be made from the by-products such as the hide, as well as by selling carcases to pet food manufacturers and maggot farms. The flesh is not allowed to be used for human consumption or for consumption by livestock, fish or horses.
Welfare concerns come to mind immediately. The calves are condemned animals, and, as I have said, I believe that they will receive minimal care on the farm. Certainly, an expensive —[Interruption.] I believe that that will be the case on many farms. I am just saying what


I believe. Given the pressures on farmers, I do not believe that they will be prepared to pay for expensive veterinary visits, because the cost would be uneconomic.
There is the question of transporting and marketing. Many of the calves are being sent to market and bought by dealers who shop around for the abattoir offering the best price. Some dealers are paying £101 for a calf, yet, as I have said, the subsidy to the abattoir is only 103.47. Are the abattoirs paying more than the subsidy for each calf? If so, how are they making a profit? There will obviously be a little bit extra from by-products, but can we be certain that none of those calves is ending up in the food chain?
There are many reports of calves being brought to market and sent on lengthy journeys to faraway slaughterhouses. We all know that young calves make poor travellers—the literature shows us that. We know of consignments that have gone from a west country market all the way to Scotland. It is appalling. Dealers are collecting calves and transporting them all over the country.
On 17 August, there was an advertisement in a west country newspaper, the Western Morning News, which called for calves of four to 10 days old. It talked about
regular collections throughout Devon and Cornwall".
It is an offence to transport a calf of four days old, before the navel has healed. What action is being taken? Nothing is being done, because so many cowboys are operating. When a large amount of taxpayers' money is around, corruption always comes in.
The welfare considerations of the cattle have not been addressed in the House in the way they should. The concern is essentially for farmers, particularly those who are making a big noise. There are votes here. I did not just turn up in this place yesterday; I understand that votes are vital and concentrate the mind of every politician, but we should not be oblivious to the welfare of the animals that are being massacred, in many cases unnecessarily, in their hundreds of thousands.
The BSE crisis has been an example of appalling incompetence, particularly within the cattle cake manufacturing sector. They are the people who are responsible for this, and I want to see someone arraigned before the courts. If this had been in any other area of production, the producers would have been in the courts by now, and all sorts of heavy fines, if not imprisonment, would have been handed out. It has been an example of incompetence by the Government and the industry. It is about time the electorate were given the opportunity to carry out a political cull of the Government.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is right to be concerned about animal welfare, particularly over the next few months. We are all concerned about that, none more so than the farmers who have bred the animals.
There was a curious air of unreality about the opening speech of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) which contrasted sharply with what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) described as the realistic assessment of the situation in Europe presented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister.
It will come as no surprise to the House when I say that I wish to concentrate on Wales, although much of what I want to say will be applicable to other parts of the United Kingdom, except perhaps Newham.
Agriculture is very important to us in Wales. It is the backbone of our rural economy and the prosperity of life in the countryside is highly dependent on it. The beef sector is an essential element of that. I met my farmers during the long recess and when they came to Westminster on the opening day of this parliamentary Session. I know at first hand of the problems they face on farms, in the market and even in the abattoirs and elsewhere.
There was a backlog of 30-month-old cattle which grew during the summer months as the farmers failed to get them slaughtered. There is no doubt that Wales is particularly handicapped by its lack of rendering capacity and our animals had to be taken over the border after slaughter. Progress was abysmally slow. Some extra facilities have been brought into play and the pace of the cull has undoubtedly quickened. However, there is still a lot of cattle on farms awaiting slaughter. I am glad that more carcases are now being diverted to cold storage and that precedence is being given to registered animals.
Wales has 14 per cent. of the total England and Wales backlog and I welcome the measures taken to deal with that. During the recess, the process was so slow that my farmers were actively discussing the possibility of incinerating carcases in disused quarries and elsewhere. I hope that we shall not embark upon an accelerated cull, as proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), before we have disposed of the backlog. We can talk about it and think about it along the lines advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk. I thought that what he said about the accelerated cull made good sense.
The effect of the backlog, coupled with the low market price, has meant that farmers have been unable to restock this autumn as they would have wished. Their incomes have been hit badly, not only this year but for the year to come. It is important to bear that in mind.
Most of Wales is hill farming country. It is 80 per cent. less-favoured area and there is considerable dependence on the livestock compensatory allowances, which, as I understand it, have fallen in value over the past four years. Therefore, I plead with the Government to be as generous as possible with those payments this year. If they are not, many farming enterprises will go under and those that survive will be left wondering whether there is any future in farming for them and their families and whether we in this House really care.
Few could understand the Brussels decision to reduce by 10 per cent. the basic payment under the over-30-months scheme. No one will understand it if the hill livestock compensatory allowances are not up to expectations, and are niggardly at this time of deep crisis and acute need in the farming industry.

Mr. Home Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a Brussels decision to cut compensation payments. He should understand that that decision was taken by the British Government.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I understand that it was a Brussels decision. It was certainly taken in Brussels. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was taken in Brussels.


We have talked a great deal about consumer confidence in beef. We are now talking about farmers' confidence in themselves and their enterprises. It is vital that that confidence be maintained and sustained through the HLCAs to be announced later this month. I warn the Government that there will be justifiable anguish if the uprating is inadequate.
There is no doubt in my mind that we must eradicate BSE—that has been my position from the outset, but it is easier said than done, especially in the absence of complete and definitive science. The incompleteness of our knowledge and its emergence in dribs and drabs have been responsible for many of our difficulties, along with what I describe as the vagaries of European Union opinion. That BSE must be eradicated is now generally accepted. Scientists are urging a similar policy on scrapie in our sheep flocks, and I do not dissent from that view. Meat for human consumption must be above suspicion. However, I do not underestimate the enormity of the tasks and the length of time that they will take. Mercifully, the end of BSE is in sight as a result of the measures adopted by the Government.
It is also clear that while measures are taken to achieve the objective of clean herds and flocks, the farming community must be financially supported or it may lose heart, which would be a sad day for all of us. I fully appreciate the magnitude of the Government's financial commitment—£2.5 billion. I also appreciate the fact that they have already allocated £60 million to hill farmers, although I am not sure how that will be distributed.
I am aware of the tremendous personal efforts made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and his colleagues on the Front Bench, who were faced with a daunting situation that might have floored lesser men. They are to be commended for their courage, pertinacity and dogged pursuit of their policy objectives.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred to the rapid reaction to the Falklands crisis. We were dealing with the Argentines with our own forces. The BSE problem facing the farming industry is very different. It takes time for agricultural measures to take effect.
I am sure that the Government will persevere and rally the farming community behind them. I hope that they will also have the full support of their colleagues in the Treasury and other Departments, including the Ministry of Defence, which is feeding our troops with foreign beef. There have been protests in Wales—I am sure that the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) is aware of them, as is the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), because he listened to representations from the farming industry. A change would help to restore and buttress confidence, as would the return of beef to our school menus. Believe it or not, in parts of the Principality—even rural parts —beef is still not on the school menu.
It is clear that the Opposition are milking the beef crisis for all it is worth. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is right to describe their behaviour as cynical political opportunism at the expense of the farming industry. Naturally, the Opposition are quick to fault the Government at every step in the long process towards the

eradication of BSE, but it is by no means clear after today's debate what they would have done had they been in office. They are not clear about what they would do, even with the hindsight that they have now. They are naive in the extreme to think that more could have been done to lift the European ban, especially when the European beef industry as a whole was suffering a severe crisis of consumer confidence.
The right hon. Member for Livingston gave the game away when he referred to the decline in beef sales in France, Germany and elsewhere. Surely that proves that there was a lack of confidence in French, German and Italian beef, as well as in British beef, which was not subsequently exported to those countries.

Mr. Marland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lack of confidence in beef in Europe is due to the fact that there is no system similar to ours for tracing BSE? All too often, when a cow in France looks as if it has a BSE problem, it is diagnosed by the vet as having backache. The farmer is advised to get it to the market and into the food chain as quickly as possible, so that the whole affair can be covered up.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have supreme confidence in our beef industry, and in the safety of our beef products. That is not paralleled in European countries, where consumers have more doubts than British consumers.
The Government have taken the right measures in difficult circumstances. The proof of that is that the end of the BSE scourge is in sight. Opposition Members have given the impression that somehow or other the crisis could have been solved overnight. Measures to eradicate BSE require time, and the industry requires time to work those measures through.

Mr. William Ross: The Minister of Agriculture began his speech by saying that the BSE crisis was a disaster for British agriculture. I hope that he will reconsider those words and accept that it is a disaster not only for British agriculture, but for a wider spectrum of our economy. The ancillary industry employs a vast number of people—far more than the numbers employed on beef production in farms—who have also suffered grievously. We must keep in the forefront of our minds the problems that those people have faced, many of whom have lost their livelihoods as a result of the crisis.
In Florence the Prime Minister, the Government and the country signed up, if not to a timetable, to a sequence of events leading to a progressive lifting of the beef ban. I say that in the most charitable way that I can: whenever we start talking about timetables, the perspective, or the meaning, seems to change. In any event, although we may not have signed up to a particular month, I believe that we certainly signed up to a result that was clearly understood by all. Although we are all happy that four of the five measures agreed to at that time have now been implemented—or nearly implemented—we are concerned about the remaining principle of the cull, which has not yet been carried out. We look forward to the day when a certified herd scheme will operate throughout the United Kingdom.
I am glad that in Northern Ireland—and, apparently, throughout the United Kingdom —all cattle destined for slaughter are now registered and given a measure of


priority. I have always felt that the Government should have taken control of the situation. I know that there were manpower difficulties at the start, but a large number of retired officials could have been brought back on an emergency basis to set up and run the scheme. That would have avoided all the problems encountered by farmers, and all the rumours of fraud, backhanders and so forth that have so plagued the scheme. The mere fact that the Government have now had to take over the whole system of registering cattle for slaughter means that the view of those such as my local farmers union was entirely correct.
I hope that the slaughter of the 90,000 cattle that remain in Northern Ireland will soon be carried out, but it cannot be carried out unless some of those cattle leave Northern Ireland to be slaughtered elsewhere. That means that they must cross the water to Great Britain. I hope that the Minister can tell us whether that will be possible, because we all want the backlog in the entire United Kingdom to be cleared very soon.
Another point that the Minister and the Government seem to be trying to ignore is that, so far as the Common Market countries are concerned, the only show in town is the certified herd scheme. Having listened with interest to all that has been said here today, I simply cannot understand why the detailed papers have not been presented, because that is the key. Is it because the Government are not prepared to continue the accelerated slaughter scheme, which would have to follow on from the clearance of the current backlog involving cattle aged over 30 months?
My hon. Friends and I appreciate that those in the rest of the United Kingdom may not know where the cattle intended for accelerated slaughter actually are. They may not know which beasts are involved, and on which farms they are located. In Northern Ireland, however, we know which cattle are involved and where they are. As I pointed out in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)—a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—in recent months the number has dropped by some 300 to 1,700.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I understand that the most recent figure is nearer 400.

Mr. Ross: If the number is dropping as fast as that, it is excellent news. The cattle, however, are scattered over Northern Ireland. Although in theory one day's slaughtering would deal with the lot, it would actually take about a fortnight to gather them all up and get them through the slaughterhouses. We hope that an effort will be made to do that very soon; once it is done, Northern Ireland will have fully met the requirements of the Florence agreement.
The Minister said in his speech that there was no credible cull policy that would accelerate a national clear-up of BSE. I assume that that is one of the reasons for his current difficulties with our colleagues in the European states. He also pointed out that, despite all the work done by the United Kingdom, there had been no favourable response from those other countries. If the situation regarding the attitude of the other EC countries is as bad as the Minister believes, it is time to test their good faith. In Northern Ireland, and to a lesser extent in Scotland, the mechanism is to hand, although I understand that Commissioner Fischler has indicated that Scotland

would not be accepted as speedily as Northern Ireland in that regard. In Northern Ireland, the cattle can be identified, the whole thing could be cleared up in a matter of weeks, and we would then know whether Europe was prepared to accept the measures that we have signed up to.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I make two brief points? The first relates to the backlog. We hope to be able to increase throughput to around 8,000 per week in the fairly near future. Beyond that, of course, the backlog needs to be cleared in a UK-wide context: we are as anxious as the hon. Gentleman is for the backlog in the Province to be cleared.
As for the extent to which the European Commissioner and his officials have been involved in discussions on the specialist herds, the beef assurance scheme and the certified herds, we have had detailed discussions on the basis of detailed papers. The Commissioner and the officials understand very well that Northern Ireland will fall readily into both the beef assurance and the certified herd schemes. It seems to me that any proposals that we present are likely to bring early benefit, in so far as benefit is possible, for Northern Ireland. I direct what I have said to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) as well, as I know that he has the same anxieties.

Mr. Ross: We all know these things. There is nothing new in what the Minister has said. What we want to know is whether he is going to test the good faith of those in Europe. If we are not prepared to do that, what is the use of all these words? We have an instrument to hand —or a weapon, if hon. Members wish me to use a stronger term—which we can use to extract from Europe the concessions that we need. The plain truth is that, no matter what system we use, the very first area of the United Kingdom that will be able to meet the requirements is Northern Ireland—followed rapidly, I believe, by many parts of Scotland, under the certified herd scheme. We all understand that, but when will Europe's good will be tested?
To go a little further down the same road, can the Minister tell us whether, when we reach the happy point at which we believe that the Florence criterion has been met, the Standing Veterinary Committee can itself lift the ban? The Minister shakes his head, but I understand that the decision on tallow and gelatine never went back to the Council of Ministers: it was lifted following a request, or a ruling, from the committee.
Let us look at the time scale. If the scheme must be considered by the committee, it will probably want to look at it for two or three months, and it may then have to return to the Council of Ministers. Does the scheme have to go back to the Council of Ministers? Will we be subjected to one delay after another, carrying the thing on until perhaps after a general election, before final decisions are taken? If so, all the problems that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) mentioned, including the feeding of cattle over the winter, will have to be faced. The Minister cannot wriggle out of these problems. We all appreciate his difficulties in dealing with Europe, but these are crunch issues and we need answers to them today.
The flagging of holdings is basically a Northern Ireland problem only. The Minister and Baroness Denton of Wakefield at the Northern Ireland Office are well apprised


of the difficulties surrounding the issue. He knows that there is a unique problem in relation to flagged suckler herds. Farmers expect to sell their calves by this time every year. If they try to sell them at present, however, they are immediately flagged up in the market as calves from herds that have had some contact with BSE, with the result that no one in the buyers' end of the market wants to know.
Farmers do not have the feed to carry progeny over the winter. Next year's calves have already been born and the rest will be born in the next few months, to be sold, farmers expect, next autumn. There must be some way out, some scheme to help those 300 farmers in Northern Ireland. I am sure that Members representing Wales and Scotland will be aware of the same difficulty, although a slightly different aspect of it may concern them. That problem concerns us in Northern Ireland. We need sensible answers to help that small group of farmers in the hills of Northern Ireland.

Sir Hector Monro: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who has a broad knowledge of agriculture and of rural affairs, as he has demonstrated again today.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I felt that the opening speech by the Opposition spokesman was a political act of scaremongering. He spoke with much hindsight, was negative and did not say how the Labour party would handle the crisis in future, if in power. We know that we have had a difficult six months. As a farmer, I have been involved at first hand in the problems of, say, the over-30-month scheme and the calves scheme. I have heard the problems that my constituents have, as farmers, in getting their beasts to slaughterhouses. It has been a difficult time for them. They were particularly cross at the reduction in the value of the OTMS in October. Those in the queue felt hard done by that they had missed the deadline by a few days, as I did when the date for the topping-up of heifers occurred in July.

Mr. Tyler: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Minister was wrong in saying just now that the reduction was made on the initiative of the European Commission in Brussels? In fact, the initiative came from Her Majesty's Government.

Sir Hector Monro: I will not confirm it because I do not know. This was all part of the fact that the European Community ecu had to be reduced, which was tied in with the value of the green pound. It was Europe's decision as much as ours.

Mr. Tyler: May I just separate those two issues? The 3 per cent. reduction was the result of the green pound devaluation—the right hon. Gentleman is correct there—but the 10 per cent. reduction, which took place before that, was on the initiative of Ministers.

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. Whoever made the reduction, it was unfortunate that it had to be made at all, because the prime beef market had been slowly recovering. The price was

approaching around 100p per kilogram and farmers felt a little better for that. They took it hard when the OTMS was reduced.
I thank the Ministers who have been involved. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and Lord Lindsay have spent much time trying to resolve problems and to help. Both were at the recent Council meeting with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his colleagues. Ministers have left no stone unturned in trying to resolve the problem, which came out of the blue in March. It is not right for Opposition Members to criticise Ministers, because the problem came as a big surprise in March.
Much had to be put in place quickly to try to save the industry, which the Government have done. We have had our knocks, prices are down and there are still problems. Considering what occurred, however, we have got through the summer and autumn better than many people thought we would. The Opposition are carping in not accepting the huge amount of money that the Government have put into the BSE problem—£2.5 billion. A Labour Government would never have considered putting up so much money to help farmers.
The trend is right, but the overall issue is that the priority is to get the ban lifted and exports re-established. It is no use flying kites—as many people do for one thing and another—which might or might not help. We should not take any step unless we are absolutely convinced that it is the right way to get the ban lifted on the continent, and we must receive an assurance from the continent that it will accept what we are doing towards gaining 100 per cent. consumer confidence again.
The Prime Minister and the Government were right at Florence. Five out of the six points have been cleared. The critical issue is still the selective cull. We shall never get the ban lifted until we conduct a form of selective cull. The continentals are not prepared to accept anything less. It may not be prudent or justified, but they believe that it is essential and it will take a miracle to change their position.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some people, the Germans in particular, are so keen to ruin our beef industry that even if we offered them heaven tomorrow they would not agree?

Sir Hector Monro: I fear that my hon. Friend is right. Whatever we do—even if we had conducted a selective cull in the past few months—it would still not be accepted by the Germans and probably not by the French or the Belgians either. They are not considering the matter scientifically. Sadly, they have a totally irrational attitude, with their own home beef production at the forefront of their minds.
I sometimes wonder where we are in terms of science. In March, we based policy firmly on Edinburgh and the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee; yet we were prepared to accept, on relatively little scientific evidence, the view of Oxford scientists this summer. Do the Government have a policy on whose scientific evidence we should use and what science is under consideration at present? Which universities or establishments are working specifically on BSE and trying to produce an answer that will help farmers and Britain?


Some things that come out in the night in scientific journals are singularly unhelpful and often leave much to be desired in terms of what most people would feel was fair comment.
During the summer, like many hon. Members, I spent a lot of time with farmers. I toured around Scotland to talk to them and to members of the National Farmers Union, listening to their problems and to what mattered most in terms of their practical problems. They always talked about the 30-month cull, but the Government have now got on top of the problems associated with that, and well done to them. I know that it took a long time to take all the relevant factors into account, especially those relating to the rendering industry.
I have been worried about casualties, but I have received letters of confidence from Lord Lindsay that they must have priority at all slaughterhouses. I hope that that turns out to be true because there must not be any worries about animal welfare.
In Scotland, we are all pleased that the threat of BSE is falling away rapidly. I suspect that there will be under 1,000 new cases this year. That is good news. Given the present rate of cull, I should have thought that a further selective cull need involve only a small number of animals to meet the required criteria.
Bearing in mind what the hon. Member for Londonderry, East has said, we must be careful about opting for regional policy, with Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales going their separate ways. I believe that it is very much better to stick together to try to get the ban lifted universally. I know that Ireland is way ahead of us on computerised traceability. It is a complicated procedure, and all credit to Ireland for having built it up over the years, but I do not believe that universal computerised traceability would impact on the present ban. It would take a long time to put similar schemes into operation in Scotland, England and Wales, so it is not something to which we can give great priority at the moment.
We must look at the good news—the Government have put £2.5 billion into agriculture and an extra £6.6 million towards cold storage facilities. It is true that we have been concerned about the long distances that beasts have been taken to be put into cold store. Once again, it is also important to consider the additional costs involved, because under the OTM scheme farmers have to pay for the transport. A farmer may believe that his beasts have been taken to the slaughterhouse a couple of miles down the road, so it is quite a surprise when he receives the bill and discovers that they went to south Wales. It is important to try to keep the slaughter of beasts as near as possible to their farms.
I was pleased at the announcement of £60 million for the cattle component of the hill livestock compensatory allowance. That is important and will build up the suckler cow subsidy to a significant sum. I take into account what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said about less-favoured areas, which are an important consideration. I know that this year has been one of particular difficulties for hill farms. The hill farming review is currently being conducted and it is shortly expected to announce that there has been a significant drop in incomes. In the light of that, it would be a major disappointment if there were a drop in the sheep component of the HLCA. I hope that it will be possible

to see it increased, because if ever a sector of farming needed confidence and support it is that of the true hill farmer.
I was glad to hear on 8 October about the further significant sum of money to be devoted to help overcome the BSE crisis. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister of State where that money will go. I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister said that it is intended to pay for additional help with beef marketing, but I hope that a further explanation will be offered when my hon. Friend winds up the debate.
In the long term, I am worried about whether we intend to continue the 30-month cull. Are we making progress with the slow maturing breeds? How are we getting on with the certified herds scheme? Farmers are itching to know what is to happen about those issues now and in the coming year. I cannot see the ban being lifted for some months, so we must know how we shall be placed next spring, summer and autumn. Will there be a sufficient supply of prime beef, and what will the price be? What advice is the Meat and Livestock Commission giving to the Government about the future?
I do not think that we can sustain beef production at 100p per kilo. Somehow or other prices must increase if beef production is to be profitable again. We have got over the problems of the summer because of various schemes and assistance provided by the Government, but we appreciate that that cannot go on for ever. We must build a settled, long-term future for a profitable beef industry because it represents a major part of the agriculture industry, particularly in Scotland and Wales. The current drop of one third in the value of prime steer is a serious loss.
I am extremely concerned about the current import ban that Spain has imposed on lambs aged over six months, and I hope that a brief mention will be made about that tonight by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. That means that all lambs born in this country in spring and early summer that would have gone to Spain are banned from there because of their age. That is serious and I hope that we can put a diplomatic boot into Spain and say that we will not accept the ridiculous approach that it has taken up in recent weeks.
Whatever it takes, and whatever the cost, we must put all our efforts into getting the current beef ban lifted. That means reaching an agreement on the continent, which will be our major difficulty in the coming months. We have all agreed that beef is safe. We want to see it eaten at schools, in homes, and restaurants and sold at McDonald's and supermarkets. We must strive to market it in case we do not succeed in getting the ban lifted in the foreseeable future.
The letter from the National Farmers Union rightly pointed out that farmers appreciate the support that they have been given by the Government. They also know that they currently receive significant aid for livestock, and great support through arable aid. They know that the Government are deeply involved in rural affairs. I also think that farmers believe that this is no time for change, and they would regret it if they helped to bring that about.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: A serious problem in Britain in agriculture almost inevitably becomes a serious crisis in the north of Ireland. I make


that distinction because of the structure of the industry there and the scale of dependency in the north of Ireland not just on agriculture, but especially on the beef industry.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), answering on behalf of the Government in a recent Adjournment debate, agreed that the current crisis was
one of the greatest setbacks in the past 150 years."—[Official Report, 16 October 1996; Vol.282, c.752.]
The permanent secretary in the Department of Agriculture in the north of Ireland is reported to have said
I think there has been nothing like this since the famine.
Those are crisis words, but they are not an exaggeration when one looks at how dependent the north of Ireland is on the beef industry. Consider that 5 per cent. of its gross domestic product derives from agriculture as opposed to 2 per cent. in the rest of Britain. If we add food processing and agricultural input supply to that figure, it rises to 8 per cent. That represents a huge dependency on the beef industry. Consider, too, that 10 per cent. of Northern Ireland's work force are engaged in agriculture and ancillary industries. Of those employed in the north of Ireland, 40,000 are employed in the agricultural industry. The output for finished cattle and calves is worth about £400 million per annum, which is equivalent to slightly more than £1 million per day. Those facts about the small, mixed economy of the north of Ireland clearly demonstrate its absolute dependency on the beef industry and the scale of the crisis.
There is also a difference between the importance of beef exports in the north of Ireland and in England, Scotland and Wales. England, Scotland and Wales import beef to meet their needs. Therefore, they can more easily withstand the effects of BSE.

Mr. Welsh: No, we cannot.

Mr. Mallon: I realise the difficulties of having one's economy tied into a wider economy, but that is a problem for the Scots.
The beef trade is of greater relevance to the north of Ireland, which exports almost all its beef and cannot sustain a beef industry in the face of a worldwide export ban. That is the difference, and that is the problem. About 80 per cent. of the beef production of Northern Ireland is exported: 30 per cent. to Britain, and 50 per cent. to the rest of Europe. Suddenly to close off the market for 50 per cent. of production spells trouble for an already depleted economy.

Sir Jim Spicer: We are all anxious that the ban should be lifted. However, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the same scale of exports—or any exports—would automatically resume the next day if the ban were to be lifted? I am speaking particularly about France, because we do not sell much beef to Germany. Even if the ban were lifted, would not those continental countries—I use that phrase advisedly—continue to ban our beef products, by hook or by crook?

Mr. Mallon: I do not know, but I should like to put them to the test, and there is only one way in which to do

that: by ensuring that there is no argument left against our position. Then we will find out. We must revert to the seriousness of the problem in the north of Ireland.

Mr. William Ross: Surely the hon. Gentleman is as well aware as I am of the strong signs from some countries in Europe, and also from South Africa, that they would willingly buy Northern Ireland beef once the ban is lifted.

Mr. Mallon: I believe that that would be the case, but I always prefer to have something proved than to take the word of someone about it. The hon. Gentleman—who, politically, comes from the same place as I do—can understand that one becomes conditioned to accepting not a person's words but the deeds that accompany them. I have every confidence that beef from the north of Ireland will sell, that it will sell in Europe and that it will sell as well as before. I want to prove that, to ourselves and to everyone else.
The incidence of BSE is remarkably different in different areas, and I have gone to some lengths to check the figures. Between 1988 and 1996, there have been 163,000 identified cases of BSE in England, Scotland and Wales. In the Republic of Ireland—I make no political point here—there have been 143 identified cases. In the north of Ireland, per head of herd, there have been 0.004 identified cases. Something in those figures should tell us something.
The figures tell us, first, that the control system in Ireland, north and south— although I am speaking only about the north of Ireland—has been very effective. It has been effective and efficient because of the farm quality assurance scheme, to which 75 per cent. of main producers subscribe, as do supermarkets in the north of Ireland. The scheme is unique in its identification and traceability system, which does not yet exist in England, Scotland or Wales. It has also been at the forefront in dealing with, and anticipating, the problems that have accrued—not so much in Scotland, but very much in England and Wales, and, minimally, on the island of Ireland. A high standard of protection is in place.
We have one other great advantage, which I believe is the key advantage in negotiations and in solving the problem. We have a sea around us. We are ring-fenced by sea. Surely that must have some influence on the low incidence figures, which I believe I can support. Surely that must be taken into account when we consider how we will solve the problem. I am not arguing that we are different, better or separate, but that we have been different in the approach we have taken to the problem of controlling disease and to our agricultural industry. Out of necessity —our dependence on the industry and the market—we have been more attentive to the market and to our products.
I do not suggest for one moment that anyone or any area should suffer because of the unique situation in the north of Ireland. But, as I know almost every hon. Member would agree, the north of Ireland should not be made to suffer because it has exceeded other regions in protecting its beef and beef production. That would be the unkindest cut of all. The heart of the hurt among the farming community in the north of Ireland is the belief that—after having done it right and produced the product in manner that is relatively BSE free—we are suffering as if those achievements had never occurred.


I have great admiration for the efforts made by the Minister with responsibility for the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, during a harrowingly difficult time. She has had to cope with Whitehall; she has had to cope with Europe; she has had to cope with the farming industry in crisis; and she has had to cope with us, the hon. Members from the north of Ireland. I pay tribute to her work, dedication and sense of justice—which was very potently demonstrated during the problems over the continuing backlog.
I make three suggestions. The first is that, whatever the merits or demerits of the Florence agreement, only a small step is now required to ensure that beef from the north of Ireland can re-enter the European market, and that would involve the culling of 1,724 cohorts. In his most recent intervention, however, I was reassured to hear the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) say that a more accurate figure would be about 400 cattle, because of the culling that has already occurred. The figure is only 400 cattle. They could be culled before 1 o'clock tomorrow, and then nothing would then stand in the way of north of Ireland beef going straight into the European market. Is that an unreasonable request? Once the selective cull of those 400 cattle is accomplished, a certified herd scheme can immediately be implemented in the north of Ireland.
Secondly, because of the 30-month cull scheme problems, there is a differential between what people might have received for their cattle on the morning before 31 October and what they would receive today. I sought professional advice on this before the debate and was told that for normal beef cattle at this time of year, anything up to £346 an animal can be lost. There is not only a loss on the animal but the added expenditure on feed and the difficulties that that causes, especially for the smaller producer.
My last point relates to hill livestock compensatory allowances, which are crucial to the north of Ireland economy. A huge part of the north of Ireland qualifies for the scheme. Many people depend on the compensatory amounts to be able to continue in the industry, but they have been reduced by whomsoever over the past two years on the grounds that farmers had done better. What farmers had been doing beforehand, of course, was not evaluated in relation to other incomes. Due to the problems facing those farmers, there is a very strong argument for ensuring an immediate and substantial increase in HLCAs, so that people are able to see themselves and their industry out of the problems.
I fully agreed with the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) when he referred to the flagged herd. Flagging the farm as opposed to the herd is unique to the north of Ireland and other parts of Britain. It means that the suckler herd farmer simply cannot give away his stock once it is flagged. I am told that we are talking about 300 farmers who need to be bailed out. There is no short-term palliative. I am also told that only a very small amount of money would enable those people to start again, build up their herds and get back into the industry without such a millstone, which they will never be able to remove alone, hanging around their necks.
I ask the Government to listen carefully to those points. I think that they are important and I know that they will be elaborated on. Every single public representative in the north of Ireland has been working with other parties, Members of the European Parliament, the Minister,

farming unions and people on the ground to try to resolve the problem. They can only go so far. We can make progress only by the type of informed Government decisions about which I hope we shall hear very soon.

Rev. Ian Paisley: This is a very sobering and sombre debate for the representatives of Northern Ireland. We are not engaged in any party-political endeavour. Whatever others in the House are about—it is their business, and rightly so—we are dealing with a crisis, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has underlined. I shall not go into the statistics.
In evidence given by the banks to the forum for political dialogue in Ulster, it has emerged that £70 million has already been lost out of our economy in Northern Ireland. I heard the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) ask about next year. Next year— indeed, next summer—we are not going to have a beef industry because, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has just said, we depend on our exports. Scotland will survive, although not well; England will survive and, perhaps, do a little better; but we cannot survive because we can sell only 25 per cent. of what we produce to our people. We have to sell the rest outside the country, and at least 50 per cent. of that goes to an area that is now prohibited to us. The door is shut, the chains are up and the locks are in.
I have some experience in Europe, for I have been a Member of the European Parliament since direct elections were introduced. We are not going to wake up one morning and hear an announcement that the ban has been completely lifted. That is not going to happen. If any hon. Member thinks that, by any way we move in this House, that will happen, they are living in cuckoo land.

Sir Jim Spicer: indicated assent.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I notice that the hon. Gentleman, who has had wide experience of Europe too, nods his head in approval.
How are we going to get out of the difficulty? What plan can we adopt that can get us out of the difficulty? The only plan than we can adopt is realistically to face up to the fact that, if the ban is going to be broken, it will be broken only piecemeal. Hon. Members might not like to hear that. Nobody believes in the Union more than I do. The matter is not about setting one part of the United Kingdom against another. Frankly, if Scotland, England or Wales were in the position that we in Northern Ireland are in, I would be advocating that they immediately go ahead, start to move and get some water over the dam. If we get a break, we can bring others with us. Some hon. Members might not like Northern Ireland carrying the flag in this instance, but they will have to face up to it at the end of the day. We had better all realise that—and quickly.
Why do I say this? We have heard that we have difficulties in Europe. I am not pro-European, as everybody knows; I know that there are difficulties with Europe. There are two kingpins to our problem, however, with whom we do not have difficulties: the Agriculture Commissioner and the chairman of the Council of Ministers, who happens at the moment to be the Agriculture Minister of the Republic of Ireland.


Commissioner Fischler met the three Members of the European Parliament who represent Northern Ireland—me and my two colleagues, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the former Member for Newry and Armagh, Mr. Nicholson—and representatives of the unions. I asked: "Will you tell me, Commissioner, what Northern Ireland has to do to come up to the standard that you say you have in Europe?" What was his answer? He said, "You are far beyond that standard." How can we justify a ban on Northern Ireland beef in Europe if we are far more advanced than Europe on the matter? I would like the Government to press that matter with vigour.
I was greatly disappointed and disheartened by the Minister's answer when the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) asked why we are not pressing on with the certification scheme. The Minister replied, "Look, we have talked about this. We have had some papers, but we do not have the working papers yet." I then intervened. I asked the same question and got the same reply. Then the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) asked the same question, and he got the same reply. We did not get anywhere.
Tonight, the Minister has spoken again. As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said, we have heard it all before. I want to ask the Government some plain questions. Are they going to block this road? Are they going to press for the certified herd scheme? Are they going to push the issue? How soon will they make a decision? I understand that they have not yet made a firm decision. Until they do, we shall not know what the outcome will be. I urge them to make a firm decision.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh talked about what stands between us and the market that we want. He was right. The animals are one obstacle. There are many others. The hon. Member for East Londonderry took me up wrongly before, and I want to put the figures on the record. He said that some 300—of 1,700—cattle had already been slaughtered. I checked, and found that 400 have now been slaughtered. About 1,300 beasts stand in the way of our meeting the Florence requirements for a cull.
A tremendous number of animals have already been slaughtered: 56,000 steers and heifers and 25,000 cows—a total of more than 80,000. Only 1,300 cattle are now standing in the way. Surely the Government should proceed.
Someone said that the debate was about what Europe had done. The Prime Minister accepted the Florence agreement. He may ask whether I accept it or whether the House accepts it, but that is not the question. He accepted it. It was sold as a very good deal. We were told that there was a calendar with this very good deal. That calendar has come and gone and we are nowhere. Would it not be right for the Government to say, "Right, we shall bring Northern Ireland up as far as the cull is concerned"?
The second matter to be dealt with is whether the number of cases of BSE in Northern Ireland is going down or up. If we still have serious levels of BSE in Northern Ireland, should it not be looked at? The good news is that BSE has peaked in Northern Ireland. In 1988 we had three cases. In 1989 we had 30. In 1990 we had 100. In 1991 we had 170. In 1992 we had 333. In 1993 we had 487. In 1994. the number went down to 360, and

it has gone down again in 1995 and this year. The number is going down; we are not experiencing an increase. I am not making a political point, but the south of Ireland has had an increase while we have not.
The secret of the difference between us and the rest of the United Kingdom is simple—we do not have a land border; we have water around us. We can safeguard ourselves. Everyone knows that we have always had the best possible animal health standards because we are ringed by water. We have a case to be put.
I am sorry about what has happened, because Mr. Fischler and Mr. Yates, the two key men, told my two colleagues in the European Parliament—the hon. Member for Foyle and Mr. Nicholson—and me only a few days ago that they needed an application from the British Government. They need the Government to ask for it.
Hon. Members have talked about testing Europe. Let us test Europe. Mr. Yates will soon be going out of office, but he has assured us that he has already talked to his replacement from the Netherlands, who is of the same opinion. We used to export a lot of beef to the Netherlands. The Netherlands accepts Ulster beef. It was asked in the House today whether, if the ban was lifted, we would get these markets. We would have to go and fight for them. They are not waiting for us, but there are certain places where we have good will, and the Netherlands is one. We want to be able to help them out by giving them the best possible beef.
The House and the Government must take steps to get the papers and make the application. On European matters, it has often been necessary to persuade the chairman of the Council and the Commissioner. They do not need any persuasion. They are already of the opinion that the matter can be dealt with regionally. Swine fever in Germany was dealt with regionally. It was dealt with inside one country. One of the directives gives the ability to do that. We need to adopt that approach.

Sir Donald Thompson: It may seem that some of us have just come in, but we have been watching the hon. Member through the medium of our new televisions. I have listened carefully to what he has said. A lifting of the ban in Northern Ireland would begin to break the logjam. My farmers in Yorkshire, many of whose herds are BSE-free and who argue along the same lines about swine fever, Aujeszky's disease and foot and mouth, would welcome the first thaw coming from Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: That is very heartening for the people of Northern Ireland. At times, we feel isolated—perhaps even discriminated against—because we happen to be better than some of the farmers over here. We want the ban lifted for the whole United Kingdom. Unlike the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), I am not a vegetarian. I eat beef and like it. Beef eaters should eat Ulster beef, but if they cannot get Ulster beef, they should not forget Scottish or Yorkshire beef.
Let us be frank. The ban will not be lifted overnight. We shall have to go the way that I am suggesting. I plead with the Government to sit down and look carefully at the matter and say, "Yes, we shall have to do it this way." That is the only way to make progress. As I have already said, we shall not wake up one morning and discover that the ban has suddenly been lifted.


I was at the European Parliament yesterday and I saw a report that said:
Meanwhile confusing messages emerged from Luxembourg on October 28 on the UK's strategy for eradicating BSE and ending the beef ban. UK Agriculture Minister Douglas Hogg told the press corps he was not pressing for a regional approach to lifting the ban, but would be trying to make progress towards resumption of beef exports 'from certified herds' which were guaranteed free of the taint of BSE, and of the contaminated bone meal held responsible for spreading the disease. However, the presence of Scottish Secretary Michael Forsyth in the UK delegation sent out a different signal.
I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland is present. The report continued:
Both Scotland and the UK province of Northern Ireland have a large number of such herds.
Earlier, the Farm Council President-in-Office Ivan Yates told the press corps that a regional proposal 'could be considered', provided the agreed targeted cull of cattle most at risk from BSE were implemented in that region. 'A special case can be made for Northern Ireland because of their animal identification system and that they were surrounded by water', said the Irish Agriculture Minister. However, Mr. Hogg rejected the idea of destroying cattle from herds already certified free of mad cow disease as 'irrelevant'.
If the Minister is saying, "Yes, I want to make progress towards the resumption of beef exports from certified herds," why does he not put in the working documents? That is the question and that is the position. Let us get the documents in and then see the response from Europe.

Mr. Martyn Jones: From 1985 to 1996, we have been debating BSE in the House, yet we still have a BSE crisis. I believe that as long as it is handled by the present Administration, the issue will drag on and on. I am, therefore, grateful for the opportunity today to express my disgust at the Government's mishandling of the crisis. Government incompetence created it. They deregulated the rendering industry and allowed the prion organism of BSE to get through into the food chain. Government incompetence has maintained the crisis. How dare anyone say that the Tories do not care about manufacturing. They have manufactured more crises than any of our competitors.
At every stage of the crisis, the Government have failed to build a positive bridge with Europe. They have failed to deliver promises, and they have even failed to be consistent with their own version of events. In June, the Conservatives celebrated Florence; in September, they mourned Florence; since 28 October, they have been in confusion. The Tory BSE crisis has created a new verb—to maff it up. The Government have maffed it up, leaving our farmers in chaos and our consumers in fear.
At the European Union summit in Florence in June, in addition to the over-30-month scheme, the UK Government undertook to implement a selective cull of cattle most likely to develop BSE, to remove both meat and bone meal from farms and feed mills, to improve the methods of removing specified bovine material from carcases and to introduce an effective animal identification and movement system. In return, on being satisfied of an effective application of those methods, the European Commission envisaged a staged lifting of the ban on beef and beef products. The necessary draft orders were published to fulfil the commitment to the accelerated cull and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food described it as a great success. But it now appears that there never was a certain timetable for lifting the ban, so why on earth was the agreement signed?
In the following months, we heard contradiction after contradiction. Like Britain's European partners, UK farmers are confused. I have met many farmers in my constituency and they, like farmers elsewhere, are rightly angry and in confusion. It is ridiculous to leave a whole industry trying to interpret the smoke signals coming from MAFF. I fear that the smoke signals are no longer hidden messages of indecision, but the burning of an ineffective dinosaur being steered by an ineffective Government. My farmers fear another cut in the hill livestock compensatory allowance, which other hon. Members have mentioned, when an increase is surely justified.
As a Member of Parliament for a rural constituency, and as a microbiologist by profession, I understand that the science surrounding BSE is continually evolving, but everyone can see only too clearly that a policy of sitting on one's hands waiting for Father Time to sort out the problem is not an acceptable option for British agriculture.
The beef export ban is still 100 per cent. in place and beef farmers have been given no indication of what the Government's policy is and when they can expect progress. The Government have lost their credibility in Britain, and Britain and its farmers eagerly await a change of Government. The Government have also lost their credibility in Europe, with their schoolyard antics losing the respect of even our most long-standing European allies. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said recently of this Government:
They seize on an issue, they talk tough, they alienate everybody and then they cave in."—[Official Report, 12 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 152.]
Perhaps my right hon. Friend should have said that the Government sleaze on an issue rather than seize on it.
Such a stance undermines the efforts of representatives of farming bodies to press the Commission and member state Governments to honour their part of the Florence agreement. As we cannot rely on this incompetent Government to achieve anything in Europe, their undermining of our representative farming bodies is particularly serious and potentially catastrophic for farming.
I bring to the attention of the House—I am sure that it has been done before—the fact that, at the October meeting of the National Farmers Union, there was a
vote of no confidence in the Minister's representation of the interests of the UK and its agricultural industry in the European Union.
Indeed, the Minister's speech to the Tory party conference in Bournemouth was described by Farmers' Weekly as a "masterpiece of under-achievement". It is now a standing joke among farmers in my constituency that the only safe meat is Hogg-meat as it is spineless, brainless and gutless and, therefore, contains no specified bovine offal. That is possibly a bit unkind, but to be fair to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's miserable ministerial performance, it is merely typical of the Government's overall performance.
It is no surprise that the Farming News editorial stated on 11 October, with regard to the impending general election:
Few in farming will not be wishing that it brings a change in the management.
I return to the subject of science. It is worth bringing to the attention of the House a quotation from a recent edition of the scientific journal Nature. On 7 November,


Gerald C. Coles, from the department of clinical veterinary science at the university of Bristol, said:
MAFF has a history of suppressing scientific information it does not like, either by banning publication by its research staff or suggesting to those outside that the publication of certain MAFF sponsored research might jeopardise further funding.
The article then comments on the cultural problem within MAFF. It explains that it arises from
the view that the role of scientific civil servants is to support politicians. As a result, science must be made to fit policy (which may be dogma) rather than policy being based on scientific research.
That is one of many such comments. The Government have dismissed science they do not agree with, or science that is outside MAFF control, but they have desperately clutched at any science that backs their stance.
I take no pleasure in saying—for the second time this week—"I told you so." In a speech in the House in May 1990 on BSE, I asked the Government to act on a number of crucial points. I asked them, first, to make Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease notifiable and, secondly, not to use the brains of cattle for any purposes. Thirdly, I asked them to ensure that all cattle brains were destroyed by burning within the head and, fourthly, to stop offals such as brains, spleen and lymph glands being used in any animal feed. Here I specifically warned of my concern for Britain's 7 million cats.
On 24 April 1990, even though we had had recently reported cases of feline spongiform encephalopathy, the Minister said that there was no evidence of naturally occurring encephalopathies in cats. That is almost certainly true, yet every year since 1989 we have had cases of FSE. Already this year, six cases have been confirmed and, at the last count, since 1989, there have been 74 sequels to Mad Max, the first cat who went down with the disease —so we have reached Mad Max 75 and counting.
I asked the Government to ensure that if pet food manufacturers must use meat and bone meal, it should be produced only in plant that has never been used for specified bovine offal or for cattle destroyed under the over-30-month scheme. Further to my sadly necessary "I told you so" lecture, I asked the Government not to hide behind expert advice—that is, selected advice. Advisers advise, but Ministers must decide.
I shall now quote from Nature of19 September, which said:
The role of science, with its attendant uncertainties, is to illuminate political choices not to enforce them. By acting as if it is oblivious to this truth, and to European political reality, the UK Government can only erode its credibility even further.
In 1990, I also asked the Government to stop feeding offal to animals, to instigate random testing at abattoirs—something they have not done yet—to prevent the possibility of vertical transmission in cattle by culling calves and affected cattle, with full compensation, and to increase research on transmission. For some of those suggestions, the Government have had to scurry about like political rats on a sinking ship of consumer confidence, desperately trying to cover up the holes instead of bothering to repair the damage. Other measures have not been taken. Do the Government not care? Are they arrogant? Apparently, the answer is yes on both counts.
Farmers in my constituency and throughout north Wales are suffering because of the Government's arrogance and incompetence and they have had enough. They are suffering great hardship and I am as angry as they are that we have had to put up with the Government's pathetic performance.
Welsh farmers are considered to be the finest in the land and second to none when it comes to caring for their animals. Their suffering is a tragedy that I shall never let the Government forget. No doubt the history books will concur with that analysis.
The Government have continually maffed it up and they should resign. We should have an election as soon as possible so that farmers—Welsh and others—and consumers can vote out this miserable and incompetent Government. Enough is enough.

Mr. Paul Marland: I am sick and tired of listening to Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen in the House and on the radio knocking the Government and denigrating Britain and British industry. However, we have heard not a word about what the Labour party would do about the present crisis. Today's debate has been distinguished by a lack of speeches from Labour Back-Benchers. Of course, we heard from the House's favourite vegetarian, the hon. Member for Newham, North—West (Mr. Banks), who made a passionate speech, but we have heard very few speeches from the Opposition Back Benches. The fact that very few of them are present demonstrates their lack of interest in the debate and its subject.
We heard earlier that the Labour party backed the cessation of trade in United Kingdom beef. That is another example of the Labour party cosying up to the European Union and being willing to accept whatever it proposes, regardless of the effect or the consequences in Britain.
The right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made no reference whatever to United Kingdom farmers. My impression was that the debate was being used as a political platform for totally separate purposes. I could not help wondering why the debate was opened by the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs rather than their spokesman on agriculture. It was only when the answer was dragged out of him that the right hon. Member for Livingston agreed that British beef was safe. He did not volunteer that information. It seems to be the stock-in-trade of the Opposition to spread despondency and speak with the benefit of hindsight, claiming that as a genius that only they possess.
We are talking about the biggest crisis that has ever hit both our farming industry and our food industry. In and around Gloucester and Gloucestershire, the operation of the over-30-month slaughter scheme appears to be going quite well, and the backlog is being reduced. Locally, there is light at the end of the tunnel.
In the past two weeks, nearly all the cattle on the OTMS scheme in Gloucester have been slaughtered. I am assured that the backlog will have been entirely cleared within the next two weeks. Each week, 600 cattle pass through Gloucester market. Some weeks ago, the number was 250. Abattoirs in the district are now looking for cattle to slaughter.
Looking back, one can see that it has not been easy, as many interests have had to be taken into account. We had to do what we could to save the entire industry. Farmers


had to be considered, markets had to be kept going and the interests of abattoirs, cattle dealers, transport companies, butchers and meat wholesalers all had to be safeguarded. It was the biggest crisis ever to hit the food industry in Britain. It was also important to try to keep our European partners on side as we attempted to tackle the problem.
As others have said, this is an evolving crisis and a new disease. There was uncertainty about the best way to tackle it, and we had to find the way forward with some caution. Quite rightly, we followed the best scientific advice available. The Government deserve some recognition for sticking to that course while others bobbed and weaved and changed their minds. I was shocked by the performance of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Hannan) when the crisis first came to light, and the way in which she seized upon the opportunity once again to damage British interests.
Although I am speaking locally, clearing the backlog has had an effect on the registration scheme in Gloucestershire. Cattle were due to be registered on the scheme by 1 November so that action could be taken by 4 November. That deadline slipped to 11 November due to the small numbers of cattle that had been registered. That was not due to a lack of information that should have been handed out to farmers, a shortage of forms or other minor difficulties that we have heard about in the past; it was actually due to the lack of cattle that farmers wished to enter on the registration list.
I cannot help wondering whether we need that registration scheme. Could we leave it to the market? I believe that the numbers in the registration scheme have been distorted by the fact that a number of farmers have registered their entire herds. As they were unsure whether any of their cattle would have to be taken out in the not too distant future, in order to safeguard their own position they have registered their entire herds.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister said that some 285,000 cattle were still awaiting slaughter. I wonder how many were as a result of farmers having registered their entire herds under the scheme. May I suggest that, in the changed circumstances, perhaps it would be better to drop the registration scheme and let market forces sort it out? That would change the position, so that the abattoirs were chasing the farmers for cattle rather than the farmers chasing the abattoirs to allow their cattle into the scheme to be slaughtered.
I believe that we should reconsider the selective cull. There has been a considerable change of heart in the House and throughout the country on whether it will remain necessary in future. Originally, we heard that hundreds of thousands of cattle would have to be taken out under the selective scheme, but now, as a result of successfully clearing the backlog of the OTMS scheme, the number has been substantially reduced.
Many farmers have made their own arrangements under the 30-month scheme in order to take older cattle out of their herds. That may have been part of the reason why there was a considerable logjam during the operation of the scheme. Yesterday, we heard again that there is further scientific evidence that older cattle are most at risk. If the 30-month scheme remains in operation, they will all be taken out of the food chain.
Sir David Naish confirmed to the Back-Bench agriculture committee that farmers would like the selective cull to continue, but only if our European

partners agreed to lift the ban when the selective ban had been completed. I have serious doubts whether our European partners would lift the ban if we went ahead with the selective cull. It is important to get their agreement. As has been said, we have already fulfilled four of the five preconditions set out by the Florence summit. It is a great shame that our European partners have not recognised our efforts.
I agree with what has been said about lifting the ban in Northern Ireland. That would be an excellent first step. We could then flush out exactly what our European partners had in mind and whether they would lift the ban if we proceeded with the selective cull. Lifting the ban on Northern Ireland might give us more confidence that we should proceed without delay.

Mr. Phil Gallie: If that is the case for Northern Ireland, does my hon. Friend agree that there is also a good argument for considering the Scottish situation?

Mr. Marland: I like the idea of going a step at a time; that is a helpful intervention. We should seek to get the ban in Northern Ireland lifted, test our European partners, and then start concentrating on what has been happening in Scotland. The Scottish farmers are making a good case, as my hon. Friend says.
On the subject of compensation for farmers, I realise that I am walking on eggshells. Nevertheless, farmers in Gloucestershire have told me that they are grateful for the amount of taxpayers' money that has been paid to them by the Government.
I am reliably informed that the value of cull dairy cows this year throughout the scheme has been similar to the value of cull dairy cows during last year. That fact is worth recording. Some farmers may have specific views on their circumstances; it is easy to blow up an individual case to demonstrate the awfulness of a situation, but overall, the information I have is that cull dairy cows have retained their value well during the scheme.
I know that the drop in the price of cull cows was unpopular. Whoever was responsible for the drop, it happened. Part of the reason for the drop may have been that farmers were achieving a higher return for 30-month-old cows than if they had put them into market. Taxpayers can be asked to pay so much, but I do not think that anyone wanted the farmers to profit from the scheme in the way that some have, and there is considerable evidence that that happened.

Sir Jim Spicer: I can see the logic in what my hon. Friend has just said, but I cannot see the fairness. Some people stood by from early May with their cattle waiting to go, watched others go through the back door, and then found that the cut had happened and the ones who came in through the back door had collected the cash. Those who waited are naturally irritated about that.

Mr. Marland: That is why I said earlier that I recognised that I was walking on eggshells. I have not heard anyone dissent from my observation that some farmers sought to retain their animals to put them into the 30-month scheme, so that they could achieve a higher price. That is a sad reflection on them, but it is the way things work. There are so many farmers and so many cattle that the Government would not have been able to regulate the scheme in any other way.


One or two other speakers have mentioned the Intervention Board, and some problems surrounding its activity have been brought to my attention. For example, it has been difficult to trace large payments made by the Intervention Board to markets to be distributed among a number of farmers. The markets have had difficulty in tracing what the payments were for in order to apportion the money as intended. The markets have had to go back to the Intervention Board to find out how the cheques were made up. The Intervention Board has done its best to co-operate, and that is the one minor irritation that I have heard about.
Furthermore, I understand that the Intervention Board has been uncompromising in its attitude to missing ear tags. Even when a cow in the system is clearly freeze-branded and the farm records back up its history, I understand that the board has been difficult about accepting that the cow is eligible for the scheme. I understand everybody's concern about fraud, but perhaps in the circumstances a little more understanding from the board might not go amiss.
All in all, in my district, there is some light at the end of the tunnel of the gruesome situation. I wish to pay tribute, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) did, to farmers for the way in which they have responded throughout this time. It has been difficult for some of them, but they recognise the difficulties we face. I also pay tribute to the president of the National Farmers Union, who has shown tremendous leadership during this difficult time. He has not become flustered but has remained cool-headed. Despite the pressure that he has been under to lambast the Government, he has been fair and reasonable throughout. I publicly pay tribute to him.
It is wrong to blow up isolated cases, but it is easy to do, and it is an old trick still used by some Opposition Members to paint a picture of a difficult situation. It is wrong to focus too much attention on one individual. I also pay tribute to the Meat and Livestock Commission, which has mounted a quiet and steady campaign to promote British beef. It kept saying that British beef was safe, as everybody in the House—certainly all Conservative Members —thinks it is. A butcher in my constituency—Andy Crease, who has a butcher's shop in Newent—has kept all his customers eating beef by reassuring them that everything in his shop was of the highest standard. I salute him for what he has done to keep up beef sales in Newent.
I hope that those who run the mighty McDonald's will take notice of our debate today. They have explained their difficulties with their customers and the use of British beef in McDonald's restaurants. I hope that they will be reassured by what has been said in the House and the way in which beef sales are keeping up. Before too long, I hope that McDonald's will decide to go back to using British beef, because its consumption in its restaurants has a tremendous effect on the price.

Mr. Tyler: You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, in your city, the royal naval dockyard and the Ministry of Defence have let a franchise to McDonald's, which is the first ever on naval property. That McDonald's emporium is now serving Dutch beef to

British service people and the dockyard workers. Does the hon. Member agree that it is time the Government used their influence to ensure that our service men have access to clean, good, fresh British beef? Does he also agree that, if the task force were to set sail now to the Falklands, it would have to eat Argentine or Dutch beef, as was mentioned earlier?

Mr. Marland: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is imaginative. I do not think that it is the role of the Government to interfere in the private sector and tell McDonald's restaurants that they must use British beef.

Mr. Tyler: Why not?

Mr. Marland: Because we are not in the business of compulsion. We have to seek to persuade McDonald's by other means that British beef is safe and that its customers can be reassured about eating British beef, probably more so than about Dutch beef because, as I said earlier, I believe that BSE exists just as badly in Europe as it does here. It has been tremendously under-reported in Europe, and that is a great shame.
I lament the way in which senior Opposition spokesmen have sought to denigrate British industry and British farmers, and to make trouble where no trouble exists.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I found the opening speech by the Minister of Agriculture profoundly depressing. I am sure that farmers across the country will have got little cheer from the Government's grasp of the problem and, in particular, their lack of success in lifting the European ban.
When the Prime Minister returned from Florence, he hailed his framework agreement as the way forward. He said that, by October or November, the ban would he lifted, but our part of that deal was the second slaughter programme, which collapsed during August and September. It was clear from the Minister's speech that there was mistrust—mutual mistrust, so he alleges—between our European partners and Britain. The Government did not have faith that, if we went ahead with our slaughter programme, the EU would lift the ban. That intense mistrust is appalling. It is a reflection of the Government's relations with the European Union. It is sad, and it makes it difficult to work our way out of the crisis.
I am afraid that remarks such as the latter remarks of the hon. Member for West Gloucestershire (Mr. Marland), in which he expressed Euro-scepticism and sought to blame Europe for a crisis that is absolutely British-made, are extremely unhelpful in finding a way out of the problem.
The accelerated slaughter programme is our side of the bargain. One does not sell one's house for £50,000 and then go back and ask for more. Once one has signed the contract or agreed to the communiqu—, one has to keep one's part of the deal, whether it was good, brilliant or poor. I was taught when I was a youngster that an Englishman's word was his bond. I am from Wales, and when I give my word, I stick to it. It is a bad breach of


faith on the part of the Government that they have been backsliding throughout the summer since the Florence agreement.
Very little pressure has been placed on the Government by Conservative Members this evening to proceed with the accelerated slaughter programme, which has to be the way forward. We agreed to the framework that was set up. Its targeting is difficult to define. We accept the difficulties, but it is the only agreement we have.
We have heard three excellent speeches from Northern Ireland Members this evening. There was nothing concrete or definite in the Minister's speech about making a special case for Northern Ireland, where the incidence of BSE is so much less than in mainland Britain. Traceability and records are much better. There is no backlog, and the problem is relatively much simpler to solve. The way ahead is to make a special case. Ivan Yates and Commissioner Fischler are key people in the Council of Ministers. We have them on side, and they want to see us proceed in the direction of special treatment for Northern Ireland.
I listened intently to the Minister's speech, but he gave no assurance that the Government would submit the necessary papers, because they would then have to proceed with the accelerated slaughter programme, and they are unwilling to do that. There is a lack of political will to proceed with implementing the Florence agreement, and at the same time Northern Ireland is being held back.
I am afraid that my general impression from this evening's debate is that the Government are being slow and ponderous, and have shown bad faith in finding a way out of the problems that afflict us.
I was in the Chamber on 24 June when the Prime Minister made a statement on the Florence summit. What he said was incredible. He said that most of the stages in lifting the ban would be completed by October or November. The steps we took were up to us. We had to implement in full the over-30-month scheme and proceed with the accelerated slaughter programme. If we fulfilled both those conditions, as well as four other conditions—which have been met—two stages in lifting the ban could be reached in October and two in November. The fifth stage would be to lift the ban from all beef. The barren cows programme would remain.
The Prime Minister said:
this timetable is essentially in our hands."—[Official Report, 24 June 1996; Vol. 280, c. 22.]
If the timetable was in their hands, the Government have proved incompetent in the three or four months since in implementing the programme.

Sir Jim Spicer: On the particular point about implementing the selective cull, the hon. Gentleman has close links with his farmers' unions, as do I and all other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. Will he recall just where his local NFU stood on the selective cull in May and June? Was it not opposed to it? In the south-west of England, the NFU was saying that, if the Government tried to implement the cull, farmers would block their driveways and not allow it to go ahead.

Mr. Williams: I accept that the Farmers Union of Wales in my constituency has changed its mind backwards and forwards over the summer. I promise the

hon. Gentleman that the farmers' unions are now united. I shall quote them later to show that they want to see us proceed rapidly towards a selective cull.
I shall continue to follow the argument chronologically. In his speech on 24 July, the Minister of Agriculture said that the Florence
agreement was a great success, and provides a solid way forward."—[Official Report, 24 July 1996; Vol. 282, c. 369.]
Yet, three months later, we had prevarication and a breach of faith during September. At the beginning of the recess, we expected to receive details of the accelerated slaughter programme. On the last day that the House sat, the Secretary of State explained why there was a delay in drafting the programme.
During the summer, a statement was made on maternal transmission. There has been some confusion on that since, but the crude numbers suggest that it is a factor to be borne in mind in the slaughter programme.
Then we had the Oxford study, which outlined various scenarios and estimated how effective or efficient a slaughter programme would be. Such scenarios need to be taken into account in drafting the programme, but I learned from my discussions with farmers at shows and at local offices of the FUW when the statement on maternal transmission came out that there was an instinctive feeling, which was borne out by the statement, that it was sensible to slaughter the last calf born to a cow which subsequently died of BSE. BSE would clearly be developing within the calf's brain.
It makes sense to slaughter the birth cohort of any herd of which 5 or 10 per cent. have already contracted BSE. The Oxford study considered various such scenarios. It is the Government's role to draw up a suitable, targeted slaughter programme. The figures may be of the order of 100,000. I cannot understand why MAFF and Conservative Members find such a figure difficult to accept. We already have in place a programme that involves the slaughter of more than 1 million cows in a calendar year. We are talking about an additional 100,000. That is not many more—just an additional 10 per cent.—so why do we not proceed with that?
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) expressed serious reservations about any second slaughter programme, because he thought that it would be inefficient. I accept that, but it is no more inefficient than the barren cows programme is now. If one out of every 100 cows slaughtered has BSE, that scheme will be 99 per cent. inefficient. The figure for the targeted programme is about 30 cows slaughtered for every one with BSE, making it a more efficient programme.
In research carried out at St. Mary's hospital and Imperial College in London, Professor Collinge identified the fingerprint for a BSE prion and a CJD prion. Initially, farmers and the national press took that to be a depressing find, as it appeared to make it all the more certain that the newly identified strain of CJD was directly related to BSE. The vast majority of scientific opinion is now of that view, and Collinge's work confirmed it.
The research contained the opinion that, within perhaps six months, we will have a test for CJD using samples from the tonsils and lymph nodes of human beings—a significant step forward. It may be disturbing, in that we could then use anonymous testing or volunteers to estimate the seriousness of the incidence of CJD in the


next five, 10 or 20 years. If the test is available in six months, we may discover within a year or two that there are a few dozen cases of CJD. If so, CJD will be less important than salmonella, and we will wonder what the panic has been about. If the numbers are higher, however, the test will have given us a measure of the problem that lies in store.
If we can test for CJD, it may allow us to produce a test for BSE in live cattle. Throughout last year—and in debates since 1989—the Opposition have pressed vigorously for research to be carried out to produce a test for BSE in cattle, which would lead to the only sensible slaughter programme. If we can develop such a test within six months, we can apply it every three months or six months, and slaughter only those animals showing signs of BSE. That slaughter programme would be 100 per cent. efficient, and that is the direction in which we must move.
We must not be afraid of science, as science can help us solve the problem. Until we have such a test, the Government must proceed with the accelerated slaughter programme and legislate in that area. The farming unions want the programme, and we agreed to it in Florence. We must also press Northern Ireland's case for the restrictions to be lifted, as a first major step towards having the ban lifted for the rest of the UK.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I shall speak briefly, as I know that others want to get in. I shall make three points: first, I will say a few brief words about the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg); secondly, I will mention some points put to me by my local Lincolnshire NFU branches; and, thirdly, I will give my views on the selective cull and whether we should proceed with it.
First, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has, sadly, been traduced as usual during this debate. I very much regret that the NFU has taken it upon itself to demand his resignation. It may be true that my right hon. and learned Friend is not the Errol Flynn of our parliamentary generation in terms of charm or good looks, but no one compares with him in terms of intelligence, integrity and moral courage.
I wish my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food well in his continuing efforts, and nothing can be gained on the part of the NFU by demanding his resignation—particularly as the NFU itself has changed its position on the issue. During the summer, the NFU urged the Government not to proceed with the selective cull, and it has now accused the Government of dithering. I do not blame the NFU for changing its position, as this is a highly complex situation and it is quite entitled to change its mind. But the Government are equally entitled to change their mind on the basis of scientific evidence, as they have done.
Secondly, I wish to refer to the views of my local NFU branches. Like all hon. Members who represent agricultural areas, I am only too well aware that this is one of the gravest crises facing rural areas in many years. I had a number of meetings with my local NFU branches over the summer about the backlog in the 30-month scheme. Ministers—particularly the Chancellor of the

Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), who has taken a close interest in this matter, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—have cleared the backlog. Those are not just my words, because I took it upon myself to check today with the Lincoln NFU and with the regional NFU at Uppingham. I was told that the backlog in our region will be cleared by December, and a great deal of credit should go to Ministers for achieving that.
My local branches say that there are still wide variations in the time it takes for farmers to get their beasts slaughtered, and that the new registration and permit scheme that is to come into effect should even out those problems. They add, however, that it is too early to say how effective the scheme will be. They have made it absolutely clear that, as far as the 30-month scheme is concerned, they believe that we have cured the problem.
My local NFU branches and the national organisation—I now come to my third and final point—now call for a selective cull, but I very much hope that the Government will resist these calls. I believe that they should resist them for two reasons. First, there is very little cogent evidence that such a selective cull would achieve a rapid eradication of the disease; and, secondly, there is little cogent evidence that it would be politically effective in Europe. As an hon. Member who represents a rural area, I want to do all that I can to help farmers resolve this problem. If I felt that a selective cull would be effective physically—in terms of eradicating the disease—or politically, I would be the first to call for it. There is no such evidence.
We have heard during the debate about the various scientific evidence. Professor Anderson wrote during the summer that
the epidemic is well past its peak, and seems to be in a phase of rapid decline.
He added that new infections from contaminated feed
are predicted to be close to zero
by the end of this year. Some interesting statistics have been produced during the debate, but no one has denied that all the various options for the cull would, to a greater or lesser extent, be hugely expensive and barely effective.
The evidence suggests that if all 7 million cattle in this country were culled, 1,300 would have been culled for every case saved. Culling the 2 million cattle born between October 1990 and 1993 would result in 564 being culled for each BSE case saved. Some 455 cattle would have to be culled to save each BSE case if cattle from herds in which a case originated between January 1991 and December 1995 were culled. So it goes on. Virtually every single option—there is no need to detain the House, as they have all been published—would result in a huge number of cattle being culled at great cost with very few BSE cases being saved. Those are the scientific facts, and no one has been able to refute them.
I do not believe that it would be politically effective in Europe to proceed down the route of a unilateral selective cull. One need only consider what happened with gelatine: we were assured that the ban would be lifted but every member nation has found some excuse to maintain it. If we were to go down that route without getting an assurance in writing that there would be a timetable for a phased lifting of the ban, member states would find some excuse for keeping out British cattle. I do not blame them


for that, because they have their own political situation to deal with and it is not for me to comment on public opinion in Europe.
In Florence we achieved not a timetable but agreement to a process. We should have continued the policy of non co-operation until we had a firm timetable; the subsequent history of the affair bears out that view. I am told that on the continent BSE is known as the JCB disease, because so many cattle are simply shovelled into pits and never heard of again.
We should insist in Europe that all contaminated cattle be kept out of the human food chain. The fact, confirmed by people on both sides of the debate, is that we have taken adequate steps in the existing cull, in ensuring that older beasts do not go on the market at all and in removing all potentially affected parts from all beasts. Every objective scientific observer accepts that British beef is safe, as do the Commissioner and the World Health Organisation. There is nothing more that we can do to make British beef safe.
Much as I want to help my local farmers, I must tell them that the Country Landowners Association better represents their interests than the National Farmers Union. The CLA is not calling for an immediate cull but insisting that any cull must be linked to a timetable. If we did not secure that link we would be embarking on a senseless, expensive and cruel slaughter that would achieve extremely little. lb/>
We need to stop having debates like this. We all know that this debate is merely the Opposition's attempt to cobble together a majority to embarrass the Government. Do they really think that if the debate achieves any publicity it will help British beef? Will it help the food industry if they manage to defeat the Government? Of course not. I hope and believe that they will not defeat the Government, but are playing politics.
The Government must keep their nerve, stand firm and gradually rebuild confidence in British beef. The British public have confidence in our beef. There is no possible rationale for the European ban. We must resist the siren calls, and I congratulate the Government on the stance that they have taken hitherto.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Like the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), I am a member of the Agriculture Select Committee. Probably not for the first or the last time, I disagree profoundly with his analysis, particularly on the accelerated cull.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) made a forceful point when he told us that the position on the accelerated cull had changed significantly since June. We are now well into the backlog and if all the indications are right we shall have cleared it by the end of the year; we shall then have the opportunity to implement the accelerated cull.
Until the speech of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, there was general cross-party realisation that there has to be movement on the accelerated cull. It would not be a unilateral action, because it was part of the agreement that the Prime Minister acknowledged was made at Florence. The accelerated cull was not imposed by the European Union or the Commission; it was

proposed by the Government as a way of trying to lift the ban. We know that the ban will not be lifted unless that condition is adhered to. We should proceed on the basis that the accelerated cull must be linked to the lifting of the ban in clearer terms than were set out at Florence.
I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) is here. Tonight we have heard about the impact of the BSE crisis on all the countries of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales—and for most of the debate representatives from the Offices for those countries have been present: the Secretary of State for Scotland, Scottish Office Ministers, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and a Minister from Northern Ireland have all been here, but there has not been a single Minister from the Welsh Office. That is an utter disgrace. I acknowledge the fact that the right hon. Gentleman told us his view from the Government Benches, but a Minister from Wales should have been present, because BSE has had a profound impact on the rural economy of Wales.
The matter is important to Wales, because 80 per cent. of its land mass is in less-favoured areas. Agriculture maintains not only the fabric of our rural economy but the social fabric of many parts of Wales; it is vital, because many people's jobs depend on it. A recent study published by the institute of rural studies at the University college of Wales at Aberystwyth showed the extent of the damage caused to the industry: between 2,500 and 3,500 jobs are at risk as a result of the crisis and our rural economy could lose between £40 million and £50 million. It is therefore important to bring the perspective of farmers in Wales to the attention of the House.
Let us consider some of the core issues. The Agriculture Select Committee examined the matter thoroughly and it became clear that the BSE epidemic arose from the relaxation of the rules on animal meat processing in 1981. The disease was first diagnosed in 1986 and made notifiable in 1988, but it was not until this year that firm steps were taken to eradicate it.
The Government initially appeared overwhelmed by the loss of confidence in the beef industry following the announcement made by the Secretary of State for Health in March this year. They had a number of options: first, the Minister told the House that all cattle over 30 months would be deboned; then there was the suggestion of a wholesale slaughter policy, from which the Government eventually withdrew; and, finally, there was the over-30-month scheme, which has been implemented.
In Wales, the scheme got off to an extremely slow start. We do not have adequate rendering facilities and we had the problem of the designation of abattoirs and collection centres. The Government have increased the number of animals that they want to include in the slaughter scheme—up to 55,000 a week—and we have great difficulty in meeting our targets in Wales, for the lack of rendering capacity.
One of the main reasons for the Government's failure to have the ban on beef exports lifted was the chaos caused by the original introduction of the over-30-month scheme and their failure to recognise the scale of the problem. Farmers' organisations and unions in my constituency and elsewhere consistently told me that the Government had underestimated the backlog. The Government thought that it was about 100,000 and the farmers, about 400,000. Eventually, a proper survey


showed the backlog to be substantially more. Newsletters produced by the Ministry constantly told us that the backlog would be cleared by October. That was repeated until last month when we were told what the farmers had known all along—that the backlog was substantially greater than the Government had acknowledged.
That was an issue in Europe. We accept that the ban was completely unjustified and we want to see it lifted. But the European member states were not properly informed of the extent of the backlog and now the Government are equivocating on the accelerated cull.
Ministers from different Departments have said different things to different people in different places at different times. The Minister of Agriculture has said one thing, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland another, the Secretary of State for Scotland another and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster another. What is the Government's position on the accelerated cull? Northern Ireland Members have asked today about the position in Northern Ireland, yet we still do not know. Unless the Government make their position clear, the day for lifting the ban will remain on the back burner. The Government need a clear timetable for its introduction.
I want to clarify one point which seems to have been missed by the Government when it was put to them. Why was there a 10 per cent. reduction in the compensation under the over-30-month scheme from 1 ecu to 0.9 ecu? That was put forward by the Government. It was agreed in Brussels, but it was a Government proposal, made when farmers knew the extent of the backlog and had been waiting patiently for their animals to go through the queue. As we have heard tonight, others were taken in through the back door, getting their compensation at the old rate. Those farmers who waited patiently, playing by the rules, found their compensation cut overnight without any consultation. That is no way in which to treat an industry in crisis. The Government should listen to the voices on both sides of the House and restore the position to what it was previously in order to ensure that those farmers who are still waiting are compensated at the right level.
We acknowledge that additional help has been given to the industry. The Minister today talked about the £29 million which has been given to farmers in respect of animals sold between March and June, the £29 million announced in October, the £50 million additional money from the EU following the Luxembourg Council, and the £60 million which has been allocated through the HLCA. All that money is being put in through existing mechanisms, but the difficulty is that not every farmer qualifies for each of those mechanisms. The Government should ensure that there is equity of treatment for each farmer who has suffered loss as a result of the beef crisis.
It is to be welcomed that the HLCA payments will go to those in the hills who are in desperate need of assistance, but lowland farmers also have great problems. Conditions are attached to the beef special premium and the suckler cow premium so that not every farmer will receive the same amount in compensation. The great advantage of the over-30-month compensation is that each farmer had the same compensation. They knew what they would get. Using those mechanisms can distort that compensation and the Government must address that.
We accept that the Government have already introduced many of the points agreed at Florence—all the points that the Minister has acknowledged and all the points made by hon. Members. But the accelerated cull remains the key issue, and unless the Government are prepared to bring forward proposals, it is highly unlikely that there will be significant early movement on the lifting of the ban.
We are talking not about hundreds of thousands of animals here but about a limited number. The Government should go back to our European partners and talk sensibly, on the basis of the scientific evidence, about how the ban can be lifted. There must be a firm timetable for lifting the ban for all beef animals aged under 30 months. The overwhelming view expressed on both sides of the House tonight is that that accelerated cull will now form the basis of the lifting of that ban and I ask the Government to act with urgency on that issue.

Sir Jim Spicer: It would be easy simply to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the views of my right hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and for Bridgwater (Mr. King), which the House has already heard. I could then sit down, but that is no way for a politician to behave. Given the opportunity to sound off and to reiterate exactly what they have said, that I must surely do. I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister is in his place as I shall be repeating almost word for word what my right hon. Friends said in the debate.
I want to concentrate on two points and I illustrate my first point by telling the House about a farmer in my constituency, John Hoskin, the chairman of my local branch of the National Farmers Union, who is well known to the Parliamentary Secretary. my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), whom I am delighted to see on the Front Bench this evening. What has happened to John Hoskin has also happened to others in my constituency and particularly in the south-west where BSE has hit harder than anywhere else in the country during the past five years.
As hon. Members know, the 163,000 cases of BSE—a chilling figure—have not occurred in the past six months but in the past five years. Long before that dreadful day in March, farmers in our constituencies were living with the fear of BSE and, to be honest, keeping it to themselves. They reported and disposed of each case, but they did not tell me as a friend and someone who has known them for many years.
I shall always remember the shock that I had when I went to my first meeting with the NFU after the statement on 21 March, when suddenly people around the table told me that they had had 30, 40, 50 or 60 cases of BSE in their herds. I realised then for the first time what they had lived through. But that is as nothing compared with what they have had to endure in the past six months, when they have faced uncertainty about the future and how to go forward.
I come back to John Hoskin. John Hoskin is a tenant of the Duchy of Cornwall on a large farm just outside Dorchester. In January this year he was elected chairman of the Dorset NFU. It is pretty certain that his wife wishes that he had never been elected chairman in this particular year, and he probably feels the same way himself.


On 1 May, when the first measures were announced, John Hoskin had 102 cattle waiting to be disposed of. We all know what the problems have been since May. It is no use the Opposition trying to make capital out of this, because there have been massive problems. The rendering capacity was not there. How can a slaughter rate suddenly be accelerated overnight from 10,000 or 15,000 per week up to 55,000 or 60,000? It cannot be done. The problems arose and, of course, we fell behind. As a result, on 1 October, not one cow had left John Hoskin's farm. The same was true for many other farmers in the south-west, which was the area with the highest incidence of BSE and where far more cattle were left hanging around. John Hoskin still had 102 cattle and winter slowly but surely began to set in.
On 8 October, an angry John Hoskin carne to Bournemouth to the Conservative party conference. He and I had been in almost daily contact before that. He went with other members of the farming community to see my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who expressed to John not only his concern and sympathy, but his absolute determination and the Government's determination to do everything that was needed—not just for one year, but for the next five years if necessary—to ensure that the agricultural community came through the gravest crisis that we have ever faced. Some hon. Members may say that they would have expected the Prime Minister to say that.
John Hoskin was reassured by that meeting, but with 102 cattle waiting at home at that time he also knew that on 21 October there would be a cut of 10 per cent. in the price that he would receive. That point has already been made by many Conservative and Opposition Members during the debate. Frankly, I do not care where that cut came from or how it was initiated. It may have been the most logical measure in the world and there are perhaps good reasons why it should have come about. It was logical, but I have to say to my right hon. and learned Friend that it was not fair.
John Hoskin had been waiting in the queue since May and not one cow had departed from his farm, but in the week beginning 21 October—believe it or not—35 went, and a further 25 went the following week. I phoned him this morning and was told that he had only 15 cattle left to go. He said to me, "Of course I am a happier man because they have gone, but it still rankles with me that some of the people who were up to their tricks behind the scenes and who were getting cattle away got the higher level of compensation while I did not." That point has been made time and again in the Chamber today.
Why did that happen? Why did John Hoskin not get a fair crack of the whip? We all know that we did not get the register established in time. The NFU wanted a register and I do not know why we did not do it. Now we have the register, and it should be possible to say that the register is the end and that the 10 per cent. cut should be implemented only when it is through. However it is done, I beg my right hon. and learned Friend to reconsider the proposal on the grounds of fairness alone.
By mid-December all cattle on the register will have been cleared. That is a massive achievement. I offer my warmest congratulations to all the Ministers who have been involved, to all the abattoirs and to most of the renderers, although the latter really do not need much thanks as they have done rather well out of the operation. During the past two or three months, the situation has

been treated as a crisis and everyone has worked to get the figure above 55,000, and we hope that it will stay there. Everyone involved deserves our thanks.
After that, we have to look to the future. Everyone wants the ban lifted. To trace the history of the crisis, we have to go back further than Florence, to the meeting in Turin a week after 21 March, when most of the Community's political leaders said to our Prime Minister, "This whole thing is nonsense—we'll get it sorted out." I remember hearing the Italian Prime Minister saying, "Absolutely ridiculous—it will not stand." Yet they went back, talked the matter over and instructed their representatives on the scientific committee to vote to keep the ban in place. That is the challenge that we face.
If we are now to consider a selective cull, let us be absolutely clear that there are steps towards achieving that. First and foremost, we have to establish how many cattle are left on the list. My guess is—all that we have heard tonight from Members from Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and England confirms it—that the number will be far less than we originally thought, because many of those cattle will already have been swept up in the 30-month cull. As the president of the NFU said the other day, what farmer wants to be left with the cow that has the last case of BSE in the United Kingdom? Everyone will have been doing their own selective cull and many of the cattle will have disappeared.
Let us say that we are dealing with, at the upper end, 100,000 cattle. That is two weeks' slaughter. The prize, if we can win it, is worth while, but we have to ask ourselves whether we shall achieve that prize by going that far down the road. I echo what most hon. Members have said—by all means, let us get everything in shape, let us be ready with the lists of where those cattle are, but let us then go to the European Community—whether to the scientific committee, or to that kind and sympathetic Commissioner, or to the Irish representative who is so helpful and thoughtful—and say, "This is what we will do, but we will not do it unless the ban is going to be lifted." Somebody said that we should have that in writing: I want it written in blood—I want to be absolutely certain that the promise will not be reneged on. That is what we have to achieve.
If we can achieve that, and if the Community lives up to its promise, it must then go a step further. Simply lifting the ban will help us in South Africa and it may help us to export our calves to Italy, where they are wanted, or to the Netherlands. Northern Ireland's farmers already have their markets lined up—they tend to be far thinking in matters of this kind. In addition, however, we have to ensure that there is no impediment to our exporting to Europe.
I remember the lamb war. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister was in Normandy—I came along a little later. When I marched off a lorry containing sheep that had entered a French port, it was almost like landing on D-day. The port was deserted and we were cowering and cringing like the lead man in a fighting patrol, waiting for the French farmers to attack us, and I can promise that there were no police about. If we are to return to that sort of scenario, where every consignment of British beef is attacked in that way, we may as well forget it.
Nevertheless, it is worth going that extra mile to try to get the ban lifted because the alternative is five years as a fortress. Like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister,


I would give a pledge that even if we have to endure five years as a fortress we shall give our full support to the farming community, and I hope that the Opposition parties would say the same. We are determined that agriculture should emerge from this total ban in good shape and ready to fight.
Let us face up to reality. Let us take the Community's words at their true value, and let the Community show us that its representatives are honest and basing everything on scientific evidence. Only then should we go down that road, or at least make sure that we can explore it.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer) is seeking practical solutions and I certainly urge him down that road, whether they are written in blood or not.
The Scottish National party amendment offers some practical, common-sense solutions towards getting a breakthrough in the European ban for Scotland and Northern Ireland. We could use the strength of our industries to breach the ban and lead the United Kingdom industry out of the present unacceptable situation.
I have found this debate and the Minister's contribution somewhat depressing. According to the Minister, there is no end in sight for this continuing crisis. After eight months, there is still no sign of an end to the industry's problems. The debate has been a little like the film, "Groundhog Day". Each time this Hogg reappears at the Dispatch Box, we get slight variations, but nothing really changes. There has been no progress towards ending the greatest crisis to hit the agriculture industry in modern times. I should like to see a greater sense of urgency. This crisis is attacking the heart of one of our most important industries.
From his performance today, the Minister seems to have no real plans and, apparently, no commitment to solving the BSE problem. He complains that there is no European timetable for lifting the beef ban; yet he admits that he has not even got to first base and submitted detailed working documents to Europe. He has deliberately ignored the strongest European cards—the industries in Scotland and Northern Ireland. They could get zonal exemptions and jointly breach the European ban. They could lead the United Kingdom's industry out of its problems.
Those are the major keys, but I have not heard anything from the Minister to suggest that he is prepared to use those keys to unlock the door to Europe. After eight or more months, we still have no timetable. We have had only a series of Government failures affecting 6,000 jobs in Scotland and an industry that is worth £120 million annually. We are now well into the eighth month of what has been an agonising time for our beef industry. The Government's involvement has been a catalogue of disasters and wilful neglect. Rather than the Government making a serious attempt to eradicate BSE as soon as possible and lift the EU export ban, we have witnessed only a series of absurd U-turns, the only logic of which has been to pander to the Euro-sceptic gallery.
Despite all that, the Prime Minister returned from Florence in June with an agreed package which set a deadline of October for returning prime Scottish beef to

European markets. That deadline has now passed and the Government have failed to implement the accelerated selective slaughter—an essential part of the agreement. The signals from the Ministry of Agriculture suggest that the selective cull may now be shelved, along with all attempts to lift the export ban, the pretence being that the so-called review is based on the evidence of one scientific report. In fact, all the evidence suggests that it is another unhelpful twist by a Government who have been shown as willing to sacrifice an entire industry for short-term political gain in middle England.
The Government have been far from objective in heeding scientific wisdom. As far back as March, the first month of the crisis, Professor T. H. Pennington, professor of bacteriology at Aberdeen university, gave an independent opinion which confirmed that the level of risk from Scottish beef from accredited herds was
as close to zero as practically possible.
Professor Pennington said:
Scottish Quality Beef can be traced back to BSE-free herds. From the scientific point of view it would be irrational to rate the health risk from consuming this beef as higher than that run from any other country that had reported BSE in its own cattle—a risk that is currently considered to be negligible.
BSE is essentially a dairy problem and its incidence in Scotland and Northern Ireland is significantly lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom. We have heard the figures from Northern Ireland, and I must point out to the Minister that Scottish herds have produced less than 5 per cent. of United Kingdom BSE cases since the mid-1980s and that the numbers are falling rapidly. The over-30-months slaughter scheme has been operating well in Scotland. We have not shared the difficulties experienced in England, many of which have been rehearsed today.
A selective cull in Scotland would mean slaughtering only about 3,500 animals and could be completed in a matter of weeks if the Government chose to do so. The beef industry in Scotland has insisted that the selective cull must go ahead. It recognises that living with the beef ban is not an option. Before the crisis, 20 per cent. of Scottish prime beef output—worth some £120 million each year—went to the export market. There is no realistic prospect of re-routing that amount of top quality beef to other parts of the United Kingdom. Like the Irish, in many ways we have no alternative but to break the ban and restore our export markets.
The overall value of the beef industry to the Scottish economy is £1.2 billion. Agriculture accounts for more than 3 per cent. of Scotland's gross domestic product—more than twice the proportion in England. That is why we are asking for a greater sense of urgency from the Minister. He chooses to indulge in conversations during the debate and listens to nobody. He should do some talking to Europe and listen to the House of Commons, but perhaps that is asking too much of a Minister who is busy talking to his colleagues. I have news for him: he will eventually have to talk to the electorate, and that will break any complacency that he shows in the House.
The nature of the industry in Scotland is different, and I regret that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not present to hear this. A total of 70 per cent. of Scottish beef originates from Buckler cow herds which are kept to produce only beef animals. There is more than enough difference to merit a different approach in the marketing


of Scottish beef. Since the start of the crisis, the Scottish National party has been campaigning strongly for a regional or zonal approach to ensure that the ban is lifted from Scottish and Northern Ireland quality beef as soon as possible. That approach has received the support of a number of EU countries, including Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and Ireland. There would be support in Europe if the Scottish and Northern Ireland card is played, and it is time that the Government did that.
The Commission President, Jacques Santer, and the farm commissioner, Commissioner Fischler, were also receptive to the proposal, but insisted that it had to come from the United Kingdom Government. That is where the real problem has been. It is up to the Government to make the proposal. It is no use the Minister standing at the Dispatch Box and whining that there is no timetable in Europe: he should produce the working documents and proposals to get beef from Scotland and Northern Ireland on to the European markets and make that essential breach in the ban. Instead, the Government have repeatedly put their Unionist dogma and their Europhobic prejudices ahead of securing any progress for Scotland. The Scottish beef industry has been forced to bear the burden of that approach.
Where was the Secretary of State for Scotland during all this time? He could be described as Scotland's resident Europhobe. He has not been fulfilling his obligation to represent the industry—he has been rousing the Tory faithful against Europe and rubbishing the case for a distinctive Scottish beef industry to receive the distinctive treatment that it merits. The crisis was in its seventh month before the Secretary of State for Scotland could bring himself to engage in talks with our European partners. Even then, he was playing second fiddle to the Minister of Agriculture. It is uncertain what one could expect to be achieved by a man who banned the European flag on Europe day, but he certainly failed the Scottish agriculture industry.
The Florence agreement must be honoured. The accelerated selective cull is the Scottish beef industry's passport into Europe and the industry wants it immediately. If the Secretary of State for Scotland has not made that plain to the Minister of Agriculture, he has done no job for Scotland. There is nothing in the Florence agreement which prevents Scotland from proceeding alone with the selective slaughter. Franz Fischler has already confirmed that fact in a meeting with the Scottish National Farmers Union in Brussels. The block on progress lies not in Brussels but in London.
With growing indications that consideration is being given to some sort of regional approach, the Secretary of State's inaction has raised the prospect of Northern Ireland securing an early exemption from the ban. We welcome the Government's acceptance of the logic of a regional or zonal approach. Scotland must be in the vanguard of that approach, along with Northern Ireland, for the same reasons.
The livelihoods of 6,000 people are at stake. The future of an important Scottish industry must not be neglected because of the Scottish Office's failure to act. The extent of its inaction was highlighted last week when Lord Lindsay pledged urgently to introduce computerised cattle traceability. That announcement was quickly followed by the revelation that only two years ago the Scottish Office rejected a proposal for just such a computerised database, which would have guaranteed cattle traceability.
In 1994, Brian Pack, chief executive of the beef conglomerate, Aberdeen and Northern Marts Ltd., commissioned a successful feasibility study into the computerisation of traceability of cattle covered by a quality assurance programme. Mr. Pack was sufficiently encouraged by the results to approach the Scottish Office. At that time, the Scottish Office rejected the proposals. It now argues that the advent of BSE has produced a changed situation. Given that the Government had a solution in their hands from day one, why has it taken eight months of crisis for them merely to take note of that proposal? Had the scheme been introduced at that time, it would have been up and running now. The solution has been available, but the Government have opted instead for inaction.

Mr. Peter Hardy: If the ban were lifted only for Scotland, that might satisfy the hon. Gentleman, but it would not necessarily persuade European producers to buy Scottish beef as it would still be coming from the United Kingdom. One has to overcome consumer resistance as well as Community barriers.

Mr. Welsh: We should put it to the test. We know that there is a demand on the continent of Europe for prime Scottish beef. I represent the Angus part of Aberdeen Angus. I know how popular that meat is and that there is a market for it. It is important to breach the blanket European ban, and the key to achieving that lies in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is what I am arguing for. A selective slaughter programme would be over in weeks. A computerised traceability scheme could be introduced within three months. If that had been undertaken when the problem first arose, the beef industries in Scotland and Northern Ireland would be up and running. The sooner that is done, the sooner we can make the breakthrough.
The Scottish Office has been dilatory. The marketing initiative to promote Scottish beef was promised in May, but we had to wait five long months before it was launched. It seems fair that the first target for lobbying should be the Ministry of Agriculture. A sign of the times can be seen at the restaurant in Kew gardens run by MAFF, which has a sign clearly stating that it serves only foreign beef. If the Government genuinely want to promote beef, the recovery in confidence could begin if they did something about that—assuming that they have any influence in Kew gardens.
I cannot underestimate the importance for the Scottish economy of lifting the beef export ban. Ninety per cent. of Scottish agriculture is in less-favoured areas. The industry is essential to rural communities, where there are few viable alternative industries, partly as a result of the withdrawal by the Government of a constructive regional economic policy. The Government have failed the Scottish beef industry in the past eight months. I urge them to act while there is still an industry to save.
The Government have a key to breaking through the European ban and it could be implemented right away in Scotland. The lower incidence of BSE in Scotland shows that with a combination of a selective slaughter programme and a computerised traceability scheme Scotland would be ready within a short time to get back into Europe and, with Northern Ireland, to lead the rest of the United Kingdom industry back into its lost markets. Anything less would be a sign of continuing failure by a bungling, blundering Government.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: As much as I enjoy the company of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, I must take exception not only to his poor sense of humour when referring to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, but to some of his assertions. He said that we have made no progress towards the restoration of the beef industry. To say that we have made no progress when we are about to slaughter 1 million cattle stretches credibility too far.
The hon. Gentleman's other assertion—that we are prepared to sacrifice an entire industry—is arrant nonsense. How could we sacrifice an entire industry when we have put £2.5 billion of taxpayers' money into it?

Mr. Welsh: The Government are repairing the damage that they caused. We heard from the Minister's own lips that he has not even begun to put the introductory working documents to Europe. No wonder there is no timetable for ending the ban: the Government have not even reached first base.

Mr. Atkinson: I am glad to see my right hon. and learned Friend sitting on the Front Bench. He has done a tremendous amount in what has been a hugely difficult crisis. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) likened it to the Falklands campaign. The logistical problems of dealing with that number of cattle are fantastic. A million cattle carcases mean we shall have to dispose of about half a million tonnes of animal. It is a huge operation. The Intervention Board and Ministry of Agriculture officials, who have never dealt with such a problem before and have put this scheme together from scratch, deserve our congratulations, not brickbats from the hon. Member for Angus, East.
The unresolved mystery is what the shadow Foreign Shadow was doing opening the debate for the Opposition at 3.30 pm. What does he know about agricultural matters? Why should he be the one to introduce the Opposition debate? All credit to the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook): as always, he made an entertaining speech. He is an extremely good orator, but why was he chosen? I can hazard a guess. If one has little to say, it is best to say it well and hope that people listen to the way one has said it and not to the content of one's speech. I suspect that, because the Opposition had so little to say about this matter, and about what they would do, they chose the right hon. Member for Livingston to open the debate, not the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang).
Farmers in my constituency in Northumberland want not sophistry or oratory but practical solutions to a difficult problem, so that they can make plans for the future of their business. That is what they have been getting from my right hon. and learned Friend and his team. I am glad to congratulate them, because they have had to deal with an unknown problem and with changing scientific evidence arriving seemingly by the day. They have done a first-class job in extremely difficult circumstances. Most of those in the farming industry will be grateful to them. I should like to include the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who came to my constituency and addressed farmers. He left them feeling far more certain about their future.
It is natural for farmers to get angry and upset when they do not know what is happening or what the future holds. If I could make any criticism of my right hon. and learned Friend, it would be over the decision to cut compensatory payments that was taken in Brussels. I entirely understand, and do not argue with, the reasons for that action. It is quite wrong for people who send cattle to be destroyed to receive more money than they would if those cattle were destined for human consumption. I also think it wrong for those with dairy herds to use taxpayers' money to "refresh" their herds by culling cows. Apart from anything else, that increases the backlog and makes the problem worse.
I do not argue with the reasons for cutting the amount; but, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) pointed out not long ago, farmers who had been waiting to get rid of their cattle felt angry about the fact that they had been financially disadvantaged, while those who had taken a chance and sold their cattle to dealers obtained a higher price. In Northumberland, we have a large number of suckler cow herds. Suckler cows cannot be got rid of until the calves are weaned, and by the time they had been weaned, the amount of compensation had been reduced.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed views about the accelerated cull. I shall not add to that, nor tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister what I think he should do. He has the very difficult job of balancing two interests. As we have heard tonight, the National Farmers Union takes one view and the Country Landowners Association another. I think that most of us would be happy with an accelerated cull if we felt that there would be a substantial chance of the export ban being lifted, but, if there is no such chance, the cull will surely disrupt some farmers, at great expense to taxpayers. As was pointed out earlier, it is not just a question of extending the cull rate by two weeks; compensation for cattle involved in the accelerated cull would have to be much higher, and it would be a much trickier scheme all told.
I am interested by the debate about whether Northern Ireland should be acting as a pathfinder, testing the bona fides of the European Union. That proposal was mentioned several times this evening, and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) dealt with it in some detail. It has a good deal of superficial attraction, and I understand why those in Northern Ireland are very much in favour of it. Farmers in Northumberland, however, will be asking this question: if the Government went ahead and used Northern Ireland to persuade the European Union to lift the barrier, what effect would that have on the Scottish and English markets?
As we heard from the hon. Member for North Antrim, Northern Ireland has lost its export markets. The hon. Gentleman said that Northern Ireland could go to the Netherlands and get those markets back, but, if it could not, what would it do with its beef? Northern Irish beef would bear the gold star of EC approval, it would be bought and sold in this country and in Scotland, and it would displace the domestic beef markets from those two countries. That is what we would risk if we proceeded in


that way with Northern Ireland. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to give careful consideration to the impact of departing from the idea of a UK solution to the problem.
I hope that the industry can now begin to look forward to a more certain future. I would be very interested to see proposals suggesting what we could do to safeguard the future of the beef industry in the coming years. At present, the export industry occupies 28 per cent. of our beef market, and the cull represents roughly 25 per cent. The export and the cull are almost balanced. What is missing is 15 per cent. Our beef consumption constitutes only 85 per cent: 15 per cent. is, at it were, going astray. We must decide what to do with that in the future.
There are a number of options. One is intervention, which is becoming increasingly unattractive. I think that intervention beef will be virtually impossible to get rid of in future, particularly because it is not traceable. We can cut production by means of, for instance, the calf slaughter scheme, which provides a valuable way of taking dairy beef out of the beef market. There is much merit in trying to reduce the quantity of dairy beef going into the market. If we want to get the beef market back, that would be better done with purpose-bred beef herds than with beef from the dairy sector.
The third option is to increase promotion. In recent months, very successful promotion campaigns have been run by the Meat and Livestock Commission and other parts of the industry. We have seen the start of a return to the consumption of forequarter meat, which is long overdue. Promotion is very cheap in comparison with the figures that we have talked about tonight. We are talking about £2.5 billion; £2.5 million would go a long way towards increasing the promotion of beef.
I think that the British farmer has been well served by the Government. I have no hesitation in going to my farmers and telling them that, whatever they say, this Government and this party will look after the interests of the beef industry—something that no other party would do. We have had nothing from Opposition Members apart from the use of their marvellous 20:20 hindsight vision, and nothing but empty rhetoric from the right hon. Member for Livingston. The Government and their Ministers will save the beef industry.

Mr. Nick Ainger: The attitude of my farmers in west Wales is completely different from that which the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) has perhaps experienced in north England because my farmers have been extremely angry for many months. That was certainly made clear to me at last month's National Farmers Union lobby, where, as the Minister of Agriculture will know, members of the farming community were seeking the return of capital punishment, but for one individual alone: the Minister.
I was staggered by the Minister's speech, particularly bearing in mind the comments of hon. Members on both sides of the House on the need for a strategy that is workable, practicable and will implement the Florence agreement, which, we were told on 24 June, would, in five stages, move us towards the lifting of the export ban. Both in today's statement and in his October statement, the Minister took much time to explain that it was no longer possible to implement the agreement. What he failed to do in October, and has failed to do today, is to

announce what is in its place. That is what everyone in the House and, particularly, in the beef sector wants to know. If the Minister believes that the agreement is out of the window and will not be honoured by our European partners, what are the Government going to put in its place?
Bearing in mind the impact of the crisis, which has been running since March, the anger in the farming community and in the rural economy generally—not just in Wales but throughout Britain—is utterly understandable. It is worth reiterating the figures that were referred to by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) from the Institute of Rural Studies at the University college of Wales at Aberystwyth. They show that, in rural Wales, this year, a loss of between £30 million and £40 million is predicted, with a knock-on effect on more than 2,000 jobs.
In a constituency such as mine, which has some of the highest unemployment not just in Wales, but in the UK, any detrimental impact on the local economy, from whatever source, is of great concern. I will illustrate for the Minister some of the impact that the crisis is having on my constituents.
This week, a farmer, Mr. William George, of Hasguard near Haverfordwest, gave my office figures on his turnover. For the first seven months of this year, it is down by £100,000. Profits are down by £60,000. He believes that he may just break even this year, and he says that he will not invest in new equipment. I receive letters from my local agricultural equipment suppliers saying, basically, that the market has dried up, but is that any wonder when the turnover of such a large beef producer has been cut by £100,000 in the seven months since the crisis began?
If the Florence agreement is, in the Government's view, no longer operational and will not work, the Minister of State must at least tell the House and the farming community what will be put in its place.
The hon. Member for Hexham referred to the 20:20 hindsight of Opposition Members. I do not think that that is a fair comment; at Agriculture Question Time, and when various statements had been made, Opposition Members and, to be fair, Tory Members, have raised specific issues. For example, we all asked about the registration scheme. Had that been in place, we would at least have known the size of the problem and the shortfalls in slaughtering and rendering capacity would have been identified. Why did it take the Government so long to get to grips with those problems by, for example, examining obvious alternatives such as increasing freezer capacity?
The Government warrant justified criticism and must accept it because they made fundamental errors that were pointed out to them not just in this place but by the farming unions. It took an awfully long time for the Ministry and its Ministers to address those serious problems.
At the lobby organised last month by the NFU, I learnt how desperate farmers have become. They do not believe they can get through this winter because of a lack of fodder—the dry summer means that fodder is in short supply—and they asked whether we could persuade the Government to opt for open-field incineration. That shows how desperate they are, because they know that the incineration of huge mounds of carcases will have a


negative impact on consumer confidence, but they accept that. They are desperate because they have not got the necessary feed for their animals throughout the winter.

Mr. Corbett: Is my hon. Friend aware of reports that some abattoirs are finding it difficult to find animals to slaughter because of the bureaucratic way in which the Intervention Board is handling the matter?

Mr. Ainger: Yes, I am aware of those reports. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to the situation that was described on "Newsnight", where cattle in the south-west were being transported to the north of England for slaughter when right next door to the collection centre was an abattoir that was slaughtering cattle that had been transported considerable distances to it. Enormous bureaucratic mistakes have been made, which again have been pointed out to the Ministry either directly across the Floor of the House or in letters to it. It has taken an unacceptably long time to address those problems.
The farming industry is genuinely desperate. This afternoon, I had a conversation with one of my constituents who not only discussed the problem of winter fodder, but raised an issue of which I was unaware. Because of the increased number of cattle that some farmers will be forced to keep this winter, there is a real problem to do with slurry. There is potential for serious incidents of pollution because farmers' operations have been geared to a certain number of cattle, but they must now keep more on their farms while they await a decision on the slaughter scheme. They have a genuine fear that pollution could be caused as a result of a slurry overspill. It would really rub farmers' noses in it, and quite literally, if they were then faced with fines, as well as the cash shortfall that they have experienced in the past few months.
I said to the Whips that I would not speak for longer than 10 minutes, so let me say in conclusion that this crisis has had an enormous impact not just on the farming community but on the rural community as a whole. I have already referred to the fact that the suppliers to the farming industry have taken a hammering. As I said, the agricultural equipment suppliers face a significant shortfall in their market and have laid off people.
I do not believe that the Government realised sufficiently early the seriousness of the situation. If they had, even they would have put in place measures to address the real issue, which was lack of capacity in the slaughtering industry and in the rendering sector. Even now, we have not got to grips with the issue. I drew to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), a crazy situation in which an abattoir that processed only clean beef for supermarkets wanted to take over a neighbouring slaughterhouse that had not been operated for just over a year. The company had approval, yet it was told—directly by the Under-Secretary—that it could not use that slaughterhouse because the rules of the scheme stated that only slaughterhouses operational at the start of the scheme could be used. That company had already set up rendering capacity.
In his reply to the debate, I hope that the Minister will tell us what will replace the Florence agreement if it has been thrown out by the Government.

Mr. Phil Gallie: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) said that his farmers are angry. Of course they are angry: every farmer in the United Kingdom is angry. Across the UK, most people, irrespective of whether they are involved in agriculture, are angry about BSE, CJD and the cull requirements. But I doubt whether any other Government would have been able to find the £2.45 billion compensation that the Government have put into agriculture.
The Opposition motion is particularly cynical, as was the speech of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). If we were to score his speech, and analyse the solutions presented in it, it would receive nine for presentation and zero for content.
As sad as it was, the statement in March 1996 had to be made. Perhaps we would not be facing the current serious situation if there had been a bit of unity in the House then—but that is water under the bridge. Since then, however, the situation has occasionally worsened. The media come up with issues related to BSE and CJD that add nothing to our knowledge but which cause great anxieties in the marketplace, after the Government have tried to build up the market's support.
Action taken in the 1980s dealt with the risks presented by BSE and CJD. I remind hon. Members that, last Christmas, the market put pressure on the Government not to impose stringently the requirement to remove parts of the carcase from the food chain. Very wisely, the pressure was resisted.
I deeply resent the cull requirements. I resent the 30-month requirement, although I compliment the Government on how that cull has been executed. It has been a massive task, with massive, built-in unknowns, but it has almost been achieved. I resent the selective cull just as much. Today, I heard the Pope speaking to the world food conference, in Rome. He directed his remarks to people who are starving. Let us think about that. Shamefully, we are wasting good-quality food. Future generations will look back to this time and wonder what Europe was doing wasting food on such a scale.
I believe that the selective cull is nothing but a marketing exercise. We signed up to it in Florence, however, and we have to proceed with it—as the Scottish National Farmers Union recognised when the deal was struck. Since then, the NFU has followed that pattern. It is now time for us to meet that commitment.
The Scottish beef industry is a quality industry. It has been well backed by the Scottish Office in recent times. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has found additional resources to promote it—he met its representatives through the summer—and its quality aspects. Such support is very important, and has been welcomed by the industry as a whole. Indeed, only this week, Sandy Mole, the president of the NFU in Scotland, complimented my right hon. Friend on the support for BSE and a number of other issues. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, he didn't."] If Opposition Members care to read Sandy Mole's report, they will find that he did.
Others have not helped marketing. Reference has been made to McDonald's, but I would like to include Burger King, too. It is totally wrong that it is selling Dutch beef to our children. Industries in such countries cannot reach the same levels of traceability as the United Kingdom beef industry. I say to all citizens in the UK, "Forget about


McDonald's and Burger King. They are a disgrace to this country. Let's use Wimpy, which has at least supported the industry."
I argue very strongly for Northern Ireland. It is an integral part of the United Kingdom, and I honestly believe that, on this issue, the countries of the United Kingdom must stand together. I recognise that that cuts across the wishes of right hon. and hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland, but I believe that in this Union of ours we stand together. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to get stuck into the selective cull, so that we can clear up the problem as best we can.

Dr. Gavin Strang: We have had a very useful debate. All hon. Members have expressed the concerns held by people in the industry across the length and breadth of the country—Scotland, Wales and England. It is fair to say that there has been a particular focus on Northern Ireland, and that hon. Members who represent it have made very powerful speeches. I think that the whole House understands why that has been so. I shall comment on Northern Ireland at greater length later.
It is valuable to remind ourselves that the underlying, fundamental concern in the debate on BSE is, of course, one of public health. There is a new variant of CJD, and 14 cases of it have occurred. We do not know whether that new variant has been caused by BSE, or how many more cases of it there will be. Obviously, we desperately hope that there will be very few. We know that, in the 1980s, when it became clear that BSE was a major issue, the Government acted too slowly and quite inadequately. We should remember that it was always understood from the very beginning that there was a possibility—albeit, as it was argued at times, a remote one—of a link between BSE in cattle and CJD in humans.
There were delays in implementing the regulations to protect human health, and when they were put in place, they were badly enforced. The Government have admitted that under-compensation in the 18 months between August 1988 and February 1990 for the slaughter of suspect cases of BSE will have deterred farmers from keeping out of the human food chain cattle that they suspected of having BSE. The Minister admitted that that under-compensation was contributory.
We also know that it took two years and seven months after BSE was officially identified before it was announced that steps would be taken to keep bovine specified material out of our food. Three years after BSE was identified—November 1989—the regulations were put in place in England and Wales. In January 1990, they came into force in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Concern was expressed at the time about the effectiveness with which the regulations were implemented.
Particular attention has rightly been focused on the fact that the ruminant feed ban put in place in 1988 was clearly not enforced. It is generally accepted that the sole cause—or at least the main cause—of BSE in our cattle was the eating of feed contaminated with ruminant protein. It has been admitted that the animals in this country continued to get contaminated feed. Indeed, the report of the Agra Europe meat conference 1996 states that Richard Cowan of the Ministry of Agriculture said on 8 October that lax controls over contaminated feed meant that it was not until 1 August this year—1 August this year—that the

Government could be 100 per cent. confident that all stocks of contaminated feed and any risk of cross-contamination of feed had been entirely eliminated from our farms.
Over all these years, contaminated feed was continuing to reach our cattle. That is not unrelated to the Government's treatment of the state veterinary service over the years—the way in which it was run down, reorganised and totally demoralised.
Eight years after the ruminant feed ban was introduced, this has to be the overwhelming reason why more than 28,000 cases of BSE have been confirmed in cattle born after the feed ban and why two thirds of all new BSE cases now coming through are in animals born after the introduction of that ban.
On 20 March, the Secretary of State for Health reported to the House that Government scientists had advised Ministers that BSE was thought to be the most likely cause of the new variant of CJD. The Government were clearly unprepared for the impact of their announcement on consumers and thus on the industry. The Minister of Agriculture told the House:
I do not believe that this information should damage consumer confidence and thus the beef market."—[Official Report, 20 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 387.]
It was clear, and became clearer as the days, weeks and months passed, that the Government had no strategy to deal with the crisis. Our rural communities are still paying the price for that terrible misjudgment. The same confusion characterised the Government's handling of the issue with our European Union partners.
On 3 April the Government announced that all cattle over the age of 30 months were to be banned from human food. The Ministry of Agriculture press release of 16 April said that the slaughter programme would start on 29 April. By the end of May, the Government's 30-month slaughter programme had hardly started. Information from the Government to farmers was poor, confused and late and the slaughtering capacity was insufficient and poorly distributed. Widespread reports came through of dealers and abattoirs profiteering on the compulsory scheme, buying cattle from desperate farmers at knock-down prices. Abattoirs have been paid too much for too long.
Five months into the scheme, on 12 September, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced that the Government did not know how many cattle were in the backlog to be slaughtered under the 30-month scheme. Only then did they embark on a survey to assess the size of the backlog. It was estimated at 400,000 animals. That figure has now been reduced. The Minister has confirmed today that the Government expect the backlog to be completed by mid-December.
Let us not forget—several hon. Members have focused attention on this—that a number of farmers have kept the animals on their farms since the over-30-month scheme came into operation in April. They now find their rate of compensation cut. The cost to those farmers of keeping the animals has been much greater than the cost to farmers who got their animals away early on in the scheme.
Hon. Members will recall that the Agriculture Council decided on 2 April that the United Kingdom should bring forward proposals for a selective slaughter scheme for the cattle most at risk of BSE.
First, the Minister proposed slaughtering around 42,000 cattle; that was in April. In May, the figure was increased to 80,000 cattle. It was then reduced again to 42,000, and


finally, in June, at the Florence summit, the Prime Minister agreed that there would be a selective slaughter programme involving probably around 147,000 cattle.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) pointed out earlier this afternoon, the Prime Minister was keen to present the Florence agreement as a great victory—a great achievement for the British Government. The agreement is at the heart of the debate, and I will remind the House what the Prime Minister said. On 24 June, he said:
We aim to be in a position to tell the Commission by October that we have met the necessary conditions for decisions to lift the ban on two of the five stages—that is, certified herds and animals born after a specified date and their meat. That is subject in particular to clearance of the backlog of animals awaiting slaughter in the 30-month-plus scheme, and a start to the accelerated slaughter of cattle particularly at risk of developing BSE.
He went on to explain that removal of the ban would, in the first instance, enable us to allow the export of meat up to the value of £100 million. He then said:
Also by October, I expect a Commission proposal on a third stage—embryos— subject to the scientists giving them a clean bill of health.
The whole point was that the exports would build up,
increasing rapidly thereafter as the certified herds scheme gains momentum."—[Official Report, 24 June 1996; Vol. 280, c. 21.]
Indeed, on the very last day before the House broke up for the summer recess, the Minister of Agriculture stated, referring to the Florence agreement:
The agreement was a great success, and provides a solid way forward. The framework also provides for the introduction by the United Kingdom of a programme for accelerating the decline of bovine spongiform encephalopathy."—[0fficial Report, 24 July 1996; Vol. 282, c. 369.]
So what happened after the House went into recess at the end of July? First, we had the partial results of the experiment on maternal transmission; then we had the publication of the paper by Professor Roy Anderson and his colleagues at Oxford. Those developments made a case for redirecting the selective slaughter programme, and the Commission accepted that. The response to those developments should have been to maintain the momentum behind the Florence agreement by redirecting the selective slaughter programme, which, on the basis of the new information, could be more effective.
Let us be clear that the experiment has shown that there is no, or only slight, maternal transmission—that we can rule out maternal transmission on a major scale. The importance of the Roy Anderson paper was that it enabled the Government to redirect their selective slaughter programme more effectively. The Government were given good advice, on the basis of statistical analysis, on how, with a given kill rate, they could reduce the number of BSE cases by even more than was envisaged at the time of the Florence agreement.
I cannot accept that those developments justify what has happened since. The Government used those scientific developments to walk away from the Florence agreement. Let us be clear that the scientific developments meant that the agreement reached at Florence could be more effective. This afternoon, the Minister of Agriculture made great play of the fact that we would still be left with about two thirds of the BSE cases. If we implemented the selective slaughter programme, between now and 2001—

when, we hope, very few BSE cases will be left—we could reduce the number of cases by about a third. Surely that is worth achieving.
The Commission always made it clear that it would judge the selective slaughter programme not on the number of cows killed, but on the likely reduction in the number of BSE cases. I put it fairly and squarely to the Minister: if it was right to agree in Florence in June to that selective slaughter programme, it cannot have been right to walk away from it in September, because the only developments that had taken place since were ones that were likely to make the programme more rather than less effective.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I think that the House would like an answer to this question. If the Government come forward with a selective cull programme involving all the 128,000 beasts referred to in the Florence agreement, will the Opposition support us, and will the hon. Gentleman give a guarantee to that effect?

Dr. Strang: Of course. It would be nonsense for us to advocate that we would implement the Florence agreement and then vote against the means of doing so. Naturally, we would need to look at the details of the order, but we would not stand in the way of implementing the agreement.
The debate has revealed that all hon. Members representing all parts of the United Kingdom, even those who were initially against implementing the Florence agreement and the selective slaughter programme—and I can understand why—now support it. The Minister's intervention has confirmed that the House wants the selective slaughter programme to be implemented, and the only ones standing in its way and thus failing to honour the Florence agreement are the Government.

Mr. Home Robertson: When will they bring in the order?

Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend asks when the Government will bring in the order.
The Cabinet announced in September that they were suspending the selective slaughter programme. On 28 October, I heard the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster say on Radio 4:
We accept the Florence agreement and we intend to comply with it. We intend to implement a selective cull programme once we are in a position to do so under a Union banner.
I am not sure what he meant by that. Then, no fewer than five Ministers attended the Council of Ministers meeting in Luxembourg.
Since July, when it seemed that the Government were intent on implementing the selective slaughter programme, we have had the suspension of the selective slaughter programme, followed by an assurance from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that it would go ahead. Now we are no further forward. I defy any hon. Member to tell me whether the Government intend to implement the selective slaughter programme and honour their side of the Florence agreement. I appeal to the Minister to give us a clear statement on that when he replies to the debate, particularly in view of the overwhelming opinion of hon. Members that we should comply with the Florence agreement and implement the selective slaughter programme.


Hon. Members will recall that the Opposition were less than enchanted with the Florence agreement. However, the Government insisted that the timetable was as solid as the Prime Minister described it and that our farmers and meat industry should accept it in good faith. Now we are nearly two weeks into November, and well past the Prime Minister's deadlines for lifting the ban, yet the beef export ban is still 100 per cent. in place and beef farmers have been given no idea about the Government's policy or when they can expect any progress to be made towards the lifting of the ban.
It is no wonder that our farmers are distraught, or that the National Farmers Union passed a vote of no confidence in the Minister and the National Farmers Union of Scotland called on the Prime Minister to
take charge of policy on the beef crisis, which has now become a bumbling shambles.
It is vital that the beef ban is lifted. Only the European Union can do that, and the Florence agreement is the only mechanism currently on the table.
[Interruption.] Attention has rightly been focused on Northern Ireland, where the beef industry is disproportionately more important. Farming is more important there, and exports are more important to the beef industry. Traditionally, more than half the beef produced in Northern Ireland is exported, and an additional quarter goes to mainland Britain. Therefore, it is not surprising that there is such despair in Northern Ireland.
The same is true of Scotland, where exports affect a large part of the beef industry, which is of particular importance to the Scottish economy. Given the low incidence of BSE in Northern Ireland and the exceptional cattle database operating there, it would make sense for Northern Ireland to lead the United Kingdom out of the beef ban. Right hon. and hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies will agree that any agreement that gave terms for lifting the export ban in Northern Ireland, but included conditions that meant that other parts of the United Kingdom, particularly Scotland, had no prospect of having the ban lifted in the short to medium term, would be unacceptable.
Obviously, the farming industry throughout Britain has accepted that, if we go ahead with the certified herds scheme, in the first instance the vast bulk of those certified herds will be in Northern Ireland. The debate has revealed not only the overwhelming support for implementing the Florence agreement, but the incredulity felt by all hon. Members—not just those representing Northern Ireland—when the Minister sought to explain to us that, after all these months, the Government have still not managed to submit the formal working document to the Commission as a basis for progress to be made and the decision to be taken to implement the certified herds scheme.
Let us be under no illusions. There is tremendous hardship and suffering in our farming industry. For example, people have invested a whole lifetime's work in building up a pedigree beef herd. It may be their livelihood and their investment, but it is also their lifetime's work. They have built a herd that has never had BSE and that is never likely to have BSE, yet they find that their lifetime's work and their livelihood have been put in jeopardy. Young farmers, perhaps, who borrowed money to move into a hill farm in the past few years and

whose farms are heavily dependent on beef suckler herds, are on the verge of bankruptcy. Their businesses are on the verge of collapse through no fault of their own.
Hundreds of jobs have been lost in the industry. This morning, we had an excellent debate on the impact of the crisis on cattle head deboners. Tremendous strength of feeling and concern was demonstrated by hon. Members, who rightly argued the case for that industry which, overnight, was wiped out through no fault of its own. There can be no disagreement about the scale and the depth of the suffering in the industry as a result of what has happened. BSE is the biggest crisis to hit British agriculture this century.
The crisis has rightly been the preoccupation of hon. Members on both sides of the House. BSE was always going to cause the industry problems, but the Government's handling of the issue has compounded the problems, cost jobs and damaged livelihoods. It is right that the House of Commons should pass judgment on how the Government have handled the BSE crisis. We owe that to our constituents, to farmers and the industry. I urge hon. Members to vote for the Opposition motion.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): This has been a long six-hour debate, in which many constructive points have been raised. I intend to try to respond to them. I may, towards the end of my remarks, have some things to say about the Opposition and their approach, but in fairness to the farming community I should deal constructively with the constructive points that have been raised.
Since March, we have had only one duty—to seek to protect consumer health and confidence and to help the farming community and everybody associated with the beef industry. The over-30-month scheme sprang from that duty. Why did it come about? The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and others seem to be under some misunderstanding on that point. The scheme came about because SEAC recommended that all beef from cattle over 30 months should be deboned. Immediately, the supermarkets said that they would take no beef from cattle over 30 months, and that meant that there was no longer a market for that beef. The supermarkets and the farmers came to the Government and asked us to provide a scheme that took that beef out of the system and ensured compensation for the farmers. That we have done.
The scheme is a huge logistical exercise. Much of the beef would previously have gone into the food chain, and now all of it has to be rendered. There is a finite rendering capacity, and it was an enormous logistical exercise to bring together slaughterhouses, rendering capacity and refrigeration capacity. Inevitably, bringing on some of that refrigeration capacity took time, but I am fully confident that at no time could we have slaughtered any more animals than we have slaughtered. We have now slaughtered more than 870,000 animals. At the present rate, we are slaughtering them at the rate of more than 55,000 a week. Last week, nearly 60,000 animals were slaughtered.
People were rightly concerned about the backlog, so we introduced a registration scheme, which means that those who have registered will be given priority for their cattle


to be slaughtered. I am confident that we will have cleared the backlog by Christmas. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) was correct to say that, of the 320,000 animals that have been registered, almost 100,000 have already been slaughtered. I was asked about the capacity of the scheme. Once the registered cattle have been slaughtered, there is more than adequate weekly capacity to deal with any animals that come forward from the over-30-month scheme. Once the backlog is cleared, those who are bringing cattle to be slaughtered under that scheme should have no difficulties.
It is right that the House should appreciate that, on the basis of past Intervention Board records, we had every reason to expect that we would have to deal with 1 million animals in 12 months. In fact, we will have dealt with 1 million animals in seven months. We owe a debt of thanks to officials, to the Intervention Board and to many throughout the industry who have worked extremely hard to tackle an enormous logistical exercise.
We have given considerable support to farmers: including £81 million in suckler cow and beef special premiums, £29 million for beef marketing payments schemes, £60 million for hill livestock compensatory allowances, a further £29 million for a second beef marketing payment scheme, and aid worth about £50 million which we intend to spend in ways of particular benefit to suckler producers.
We have given aid of up to £118 million to the rendering industry. Similarly, £110 million has been provided to the slaughtering industry to provide a breathing space during which companies can adjust to the new marketing circumstances.
We have appreciated the enormous difficulties that farmers have faced throughout all this. My right hon. and hon. Friends in MAFF, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and the Northern Ireland Office have met farmers from throughout the country almost on a daily basis. I am grateful to the NFU for its fair acknowledgement in the briefing that it sent to hon. Members today. It said:
on behalf of the farming community the NFU is grateful for the sympathy, substantial practical assistance and extensive public expenditure that has been devoted by Government to tackling this unprecedented crisis in British agriculture.
That is a fair summary by the NFU. On behalf of all Ministers present, I should like to say thank you to the NFU for recognising what the Opposition were so curmudgeonly not to recognise—that throughout we have sought to act positively and constructively.

Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baldry: We have had a six-hour debate, in which a large number of points were made. I intend to try to reply to those points.
Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer) criticised the decision to reduce the cull cow compensation rate. Let me deal with that. Historically, the cull cow price is about two thirds of the clean beef price. By fixing and keeping the cull cow rate at 85p a kilo when the clean beef price was only 10p or so higher, we introduced economic incentives for farmers to hold on to cattle so that they qualified for the over-30-month scheme instead of selling

their beasts at an earlier age for consumption. Moreover, we created the opportunity for farmers to reshape their herds using the over-30-month scheme as the means.
In addition, the rate of 85p a kilo was higher than the rate being paid in other member states for beef for the food chain. That was clearly untenable, particularly as 70 per cent. of the cost is funded by the Community. I do not blame farmers for doing what they did, but neither of those consequences was desirable or intended, and it was right that the rate was changed. I of course appreciate the concerns that, for those who had not managed to get their cattle through the OTMS, the change seemed unfair because it looked as if it was retrospective, but without a registration scheme there was nothing that we could do about it. We just could not continue as we were. I have to say to the House that, given the circumstances, I do not believe that we could ever get perfect equity. One cannot achieve perfect equity among all producers.
My hon. Friends have raised concerns about particular groups. We had a debate this morning on head deboners. I told my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and others who took part in that debate that I was more than willing to meet representatives of the head deboning industry to hear at first hand their concerns.
I am also aware that some of my hon. Friends have been concerned that certain abattoirs have not yet been able to participate in culling cattle as part of the over-30-month scheme. The present agreements with the slaughterers expire on 31 March next year. By early December, the Intervention Board will invite expressions of interest from the industry in participating in the continuing cull after 31 March.
The debate has, understandably, moved on to a debate in large part on the selective cull. I think that all my hon. Friends will agree that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister achieved a good outcome at Florence in that he succeeded in achieving an agreed process with our European colleagues which until that time they had not agreed.
During the summer, we reconsidered our position on the selective cull for reasons that I shall explain to the House in more detail. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have been interested to hear the comments of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. If orders are brought to the House, I am sure that we can look forward to their full support in introducing the necessary statutory instruments for a cull. That is the first time today that such an offer appears to have been forthcoming.
Before the summer, there was considerable opposition from farming unions to a selective cull. We all remember stories about farmers at their farm gates with shotguns, and there was scant support from Opposition parties for such a cull. In fairness, the position of the farming unions turned around completely during the summer, and they are now broadly in support of some kind of cull. In May, the NFU told us:
The NFU could not, however, support any culling scheme that was not linked to a clear framework for a progressive and rapid lifting of the export ban".
Just before the House rose in July, the NFU said that it believed that
an additional slaughter programme is unjustified on scientific grounds".


As recently as 11 September, the Country Landowners Association said that it
continues to be against the Government's present policy on the Accelerated Slaughter Scheme.
There has now been something of a change in the NFU and the CLA, and that has been reflected in the farming unions elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The NFU briefing for this debate said:
It is essential that there is a UK-wide selective cull".
I emphasise that, and I hope that those hon. Members who have not taken part in this debate, or who have been unable to attend all of it, will read Hansard tomorrow. There have been many expressions of a desire to get on with a selective cull, but there have been almost as many variants of how that cull should best be taken forward. The NFU is now saying that there should be
a UK-wide selective cull to ensure that farmers in different regions of the UK are not disadvantaged …; the only prospect of obtaining an early lifting of the export ban is for the British Government to carry out what it committed itself to doing in Florence this summer.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister of State give way?

Mr. Baldry: No. The hon. Gentleman has made his speech, and I am seeking to respond to some important points.
The CLA has now changed its tune:
The Government must review its original proposals for a selective cull in the light of developments since they were first developed and communicate its findings to the EU Commission.
We have not walked away from a selective cull. Instead, there has been a complete turnround in the attitude of the farming unions, and a number of other matters have changed in important ways.
First, Professor Anderson and his team published their findings in Nature in August which indicated that the epidemic will virtually die out around 2001, irrespective of any further measures, that the targeting in the original selective cull proposals could be improved and that there might be other possible approaches. We also received the preliminary results from the Government's maternal transmission experiment, one interpretation of which could indicate an element of transmission of BSE from dam to calf.
It was clear that further work on culling options was needed, and we made it clear in the late summer that we were not proceeding for the moment with the selective cull as set out in the UK's eradication programme. It was never ruled out, and we have studied the scientific evidence in consultation with our European partners. We have never ruled out the possibility of moving forward on some form of selective cull, and there are strong arguments in favour of it. A sharper reduction in the number of BSE cases in the next few years will help to give consumers extra reassurance and steady markets both here and abroad.
It is important to state that even those who want a selective cull have also made clear that it is worth moving towards such a cull only if we can be sure that it will result in the lifting of the export ban. I believe that that is the position of the NFU; I am sure that it would support such a cull if we could guarantee that the export ban would be lifted. We will be looking for the unequivocal support of our European Union colleagues in this. When we have fulfilled our part of the bargain, they must fulfil theirs.
As was made clear by my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and for North Norfolk (Sir R. Howell), a former Agriculture Minister, we need to be sure that the Commission will honour its side of the agreement if we go ahead with a selective cull, but as other hon. Members have already made clear, the precedent on gelatine is not reassuring. We met the criteria for the export of gelatine some time ago, and we are still having problems, with practically all our European Union colleagues finding ways of not honouring their undertaking. No hon. Member will want us to proceed with a selective cull unless we can be sure that the export ban will be lifted.

Mr. William Ross: rose—

Mr. Baldry: Of course, we understand and appreciate the situation in Northern Ireland. If a selective cull goes ahead, those in Northern Ireland are in a good position for an early start, simply because of traceability and certified herds. I am sure, however, that Northern Ireland Members will appreciate the concern of hon. Members from Scotland, England and Wales, that if a process starts in Northern Ireland it should not be to the exclusion of other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ross: Nobody from Northern Ireland has ever asked that other areas of the United Kingdom be excluded or disadvantaged in any way, but we want the Government to use the position on Northern Ireland as a test of Europe's good faith to see whether it will go along with what they signed up to.

Mr. Baldry: We understand that position, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that the farming industry in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom would be extremely frustrated if we were to start and complete a selective cull throughout the United Kingdom with no guarantee or reasonable expectation that the export ban would be lifted.
The Labour party has come somewhat late to this issue, and Labour Members have been noticeable by their absence in most previous debates on BSE. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] A handful of them have attended each debate, and it is significant that today's had to be opened by their foreign affairs spokesman, whose presence in the Chamber was notable only for its short duration.
From the beginning, Labour has treated the beef crisis as a political opportunity. It has deliberately ignored the science, and says that we have reneged on Florence, which is complete nonsense. We have taken account of the important new scientific evidence on maternal transmission and of Professor Anderson's work on the selective cull; Labour knows that, but it seeks to make political capital out of it.
Labour Members attacked our non-co-operation policy, which produced the Florence deal; now they say that we have abandoned Florence. All that gets picked up by European colleagues and confuses our message. Labour's party politicking is frustrating our efforts to lift the ban. Back in June, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) promised to help; we have had scant help since then. In June, he said that the Florence deal was not a victory for the Prime Minister, and he described it as a massive climbdown, yet today he insists that we implement the whole deal, regardless of new evidence and of whether we will succeed in getting the ban lifted.


Today is the first time that any Opposition Member has voiced any support for the selective cull. Opposition spokesmen have demonstrated scant leadership, because throughout the summer they listened to the farming unions and, now that the farming unions have changed their view, they are saying that they would support the Government if we introduced measures for a selective cull. We have taken note of that, and we will take note of everything else that has been said during today's debate. I hope that Conservative Members will recognise the motion for the opportunist rubbish that it is and will support the Government's amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 303.

Division No. 13]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clelland, David


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ainger, Nick
Coffey, Ms Ann


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cohen, Harry


Allen, Graham
Connarty, Michael


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Corbett, Robin


Ashdown, Paddy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashton, Joseph
Cousins, Jim


Austin-Walker, John
Cox, Tom


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cummings, John


Barnes, Harry
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)


Battle, John
Cunningham, Dr John


Bayley, Hugh
Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Dafis, Cynog


Beggs, Roy
Dalyell, Tam


Beith, A J
Darling, Alistair


Bell, Stuart
Davidson, Ian


Benn, Tony
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Benton, Joe
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bermingham, Gerald
Denham, John


Berry, Roger
Dewar, Donald


Betts, Clive
Dixon, Don


Blair, Tony
Dobson, Frank


Blunkett, David
Donohoe, Brian H


Boateng, Paul
Dowd, Jim


Boyes, Roland
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bradley, Keith
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eagle, Ms Angela


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Eastham, Ken


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Etherington, Bill


Burden, Richard
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Byers, Stephen
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Caborn, Richard
Fatchett, Derek


Callaghan, Jim
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell-Savours, D N
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Derek


Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Chidgey, David
Foulkes, George


Chisholm, Malcolm
Fraser, John


Church, Ms Judith
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Clapham, Michael
Galbraith, Sam


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Galloway, George


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gapes, Mike


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Garrett, John





George, Bruce
McKelvey, William


Gerrard, Neil
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gilbert, Dr John
McLeish, Henry


Godman, Dr Norman A
McMaster, Gordon


Godsiff, Roger
McNamara, Kevin


Golding, Mrs Llin
MacShane, Denis


Gordon, Ms Mildred
McWilliam, John


Graham, Thomas
Madden, Max


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Maginnis, Ken


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grocott, Bruce
Mallon, Seamus


Gunnell, John
Mandelson, Peter


Hain, Peter
Marek, Dr John


Hall, Mike
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hanson, David
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Hardy, Peter
Martlew, Eric


Harman, Ms Harriet
Maxton, John


Harvey, Nick
Meacher, Michael


Hattersley, Roy
Meale, Alan


Henderson, Doug
Michael, Alun


Hendron, Dr Joe
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Heppell, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Milburn, Alan


Hinchliffe, David
Miller, Andrew


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hoey, Miss Kate
Molyneaux, Sir James


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Home Robertson, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Hood, Jimmy
Morley, Elliot


Hoon, Geoffrey
Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Howarth, Alan (Stratgf'd-on-A)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Howells, Dr Kim
Mowlam, Ms Marjorie


Hoyle, Doug
Mudie, George


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mullin, Chris


Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)
Murphy, Paul


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Oakes, Gordon


Hume, John
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hutton, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Illsley, Eric
Olner, Bill


Ingram, Adam
O'Neill, Martin


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)
Orme, Stanley


Janner, Greville
Paisley, Rev Ian


Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)
Parry, Robert


Johnston, Sir Russell
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)
Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kaufman, Gerald
Prescott, John


Keen, Alan
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)
Purchase, Ken


Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Khabra, Piara S
Radice, Giles


Kilfoyle, Peter
Randall, Stuart


Kirkwood, Archy
Raynsford, Nick


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Reid, Dr John


Lewis, Terry
Rendel, David


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Litherland, Robert
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Livingstone, Ken
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rogers, Allan


Loyden, Eddie
Rooker, Jeff


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rooney, Terry


McAllion, John
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


McAvoy, Thomas
Rowlands, Ted


McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Salmond, Alex


McCrea, Rev William
Sedgemore, Brian


Macdonald, Calum
Sheerman, Barry


McFall, John
Sheldon, Robert






Shore, Peter
Trickett, Jon


Short, Ms Clare
Trimble, David


Simpson, Alan
Tyler, Paul


Skinner, Dennis
Vaz, Keith


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


Smith, Chris (Islington S)
Walker, Sir Harold


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wallace, James


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Walley, Ms Joan


Snape, Peter
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Soley, Clive
Wareing, Robert N


Spearing, Nigel
Watson, Mike


Spellar, John
Welsh, Andrew


Steel, Sir David
Wicks, Malcolm


Stevenson, George
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Stott, Roger
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Strang, Dr Gavin
Wilson, Brian


Straw, Jack
Winnick, David


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, John D (Strangf'd)
Wray, Jimmy


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wright, Dr Tony


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Thurnham, Peter



Timms, Stephen
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tipping, Paddy
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Touhig, Don
Mr. Dennis Turner.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)


Aitken, Jonathan
Carrington, Matthew


Alexander, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Cash, William


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Channon, Paul


Amess, David
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Ancram, Michael
Churchill, Mr


Arbuthnot, James
Clappison, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)


Arnold, Sir Thomas(Hazel G)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Ashby, David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Aspinwall, Jack
Coe, Sebastian


Atkins, Robert
Colvin, Michael


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Congdon, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Conway, Derek


Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baldry, Tony
Cope, Sir John


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Batiste, Spencer
Curry, David


Bellingham, Henry
Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)


Bendall, Vivian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Day, Stephen


Biffen, John
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Body, Sir Richard
Devlin, Tim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dicks, Terry


Booth, Hartley
Dorrell, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Duncan, Alan


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bowis, John
Dunn, Bob


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Dykes, Hugh


Brandreth, Gyles
Eggar, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Elletson, Harold


Bright, Sir Graham
Emery, Sir Peter


Brooke, Peter
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Budgen, Nicholas
Evennett, David


Burns, Simon
Faber, David


Burt, Alistair
Fabricant, Michael


Butcher, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Butler, Peter
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Butterfill, John
Forman, Nigel


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)





Forth, Eric
Lidington, David


Fowler, Sir Norman
Lilley, Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lord, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Luff, Peter


French, Douglas
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fry, Sir Peter
MacGregor, John


Gale, Roger
MacKay, Andrew


Gallie, Phil
Maclean, David


Gardiner, Sir George
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Garnier, Edward
Madel, Sir David


Gill, Christopher
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Major, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Malone, Gerald


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mans, Keith


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marland, Paul


Gorst, Sir John
Marlow, Tony


Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mates, Michael


Hague, William
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mellor, David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Merchant, Piers


Hanley, Jeremy
Mills, Iain


Harris, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hawkins, Nick
Moate, Sir Roger


Hawksley, Warren
Monro, Sir Hector


Hayes, Jerry
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Heald, Oliver
Moss, Malcolm


Heath, Sir Edward
Needham, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nelson, Anthony


Hendry, Charles
Neubert, Sir Michael


Heseltine, Michael
Newton, Tony


Hicks, Sir Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Higgins, Sir Terence
Norris, Steve


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Onslow, Sir Cranley


Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Horam, John
Page, Richard


Hordem, Sir Peter
Paice, James


Howard, Michael
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Howell, David (Guildf'd)
Patten, John


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Pattie, Sir Geoffrey


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunter, Andrew
Pickles, Eric


Hurd, Douglas
Portillo, Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rathbone, Tim


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Redwood, John


Jessel, Toby
Richards, Rod


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rifkind, Malcolm


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Roberts, Sir Wyn


Jopling, Michael
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Tom
Rowe, Andrew


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rumbold, Dame Angela


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sainsbury, Sir Timothy


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Scott, Sir Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, Sir David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kynoch, George
Shephard, Mrs Gillian


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Lamont, Norman
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lang, Ian
Shersby, Sir Michael


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sims, Sir Roger


Legg, Barry
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Soames, Nicholas


Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)
Speed, Sir Keith






Spencer, Sir Derek
Trotter, Neville


Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spink, Dr Robert
Viggers, Peter


Spring, Richard
Waldegrave, William


Sproat, Iain
Walden, George


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Stanley, Sir John
Waller, Gary


Steen, Anthony
Ward, John


Stephen, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stern, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Stewart, Allan
Watts, John


Streeter, Gary
Wells, Bowen


Sumberg, David
Wheeler, Sir John


Sweeney, Walter
Whitney, Ray


Sykes, John
Whittingdale, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Willetts, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilshire, David


Thomason, Roy
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wolfson, Mark


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Yeo, Tim


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Young, Sir George


Tracey, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Tredinnick, David
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Trend, Michael
Mr. Richard Ottaway.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 302.

Division No. 14]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Brandreth, Gyles


Aitken, Jonathan
Brazier, Julian


Alexander, Richard
Bright, Sir Graham


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Brooke, Peter


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)


Amess, David
Browning, Mrs Angela


Ancram, Michael
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Arbuthnot, James
Budgen, Nicholas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel G)
Burt, Alistair


Ashby, David
Butcher, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Butler, Peter


Atkins, Robert
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)


Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Carttiss, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Cash, William


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Channon, Paul


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Batiste, Spencer
Churchill, Mr


Bellingham, Henry
Clappison, James


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Biffen, John
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Body, Sir Richard
Coe, Sebastian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Colvin, Michael


Booth, Hartley
Congdon, David


Boswell, Tim
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Cope, Sir John


Bowis, John
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Currie, Mrs Edwina





Curry, David
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)
Hurd, Douglas


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)


Devlin, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Dicks, Terry
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Robert B (W Herts)


Dover, Den
Jopling, Michael


Duncan, Alan
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Duncan Smith, Iain
Key, Robert


Dunn, Bob
King, Tom


Dykes, Hugh
Kirkhope, Timothy


Eggar, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)
Kynoch, George


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evennett, David
Lamont, Norman


Faber, David
Lang, Ian


Fabricant, Michael
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Legg, Barry


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Leigh, Edward


Forman, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)


Forth, Eric
Lidington, David


Fowler, Sir Norman
Lilley, Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lord, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Luff, Peter


French, Douglas
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fry, Sir Peter
MacGregor, John


Gale, Roger
Mackay, Andrew


Gallie, Phil
Maclean, David


Gardiner, Sir George
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Garnier, Edward
Madel, Sir David


Gill, Christopher
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Major, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Malone, Gerald


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mans, Keith


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marland, Paul


Gorst, Sir John
Marlow, Tony


Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mates, Michael


Hague, William
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mellor, David


Hampson, Dr Keih
Merchant, Piers


Hanley, Jeremy
Mills, Iain


Harris, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hawkins, Nick
Moate, Sir Roger


Hawksley, Warren
Monro, Sir Hector


Hayes, Jerry
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Heald, Oliver
Moss, Malcolm


Heath, Sir Edward
Needham, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nelson, Anthony


Hendry, Charles
Neubert, Sir Michael


Heseltine, Michael
Newton, Tony


Hicks, Sir Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Higgins, Sir Terence
Norris, Steve


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Onslow, Sir Cranley


Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Horam, John
Page, Richard


Hordern, Sir Peter
Paice, James


Howard, Michael
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Howell, David (Guildf'd)
Patten, John


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Pattie, Sir Geoffrey


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth






Pickles, Eric
Sykes, John


Portillo, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Redwood, John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Richards, Rod
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rifkind, Malcolm
Thomason, Roy


Robathan, Andrew
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Roberts, Sir Wyn
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Tracey, Richard


Rowe, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Rumbold, Dame Angela
Trend, Michael


Sackville, Tom
Trotter, Neville


Sainsbury, Sir Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Scott, Sir Nicholas
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, David (Dover)
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waldegrave, William


Shephard, Mrs Gillian
Walden, George


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waller, Gary


Shersby, Sir Michael
Ward, John


Sims, Sir Roger
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waterson, Nigel


Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)
Watts, John


Soames, Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Speed, Sir Keith
Wheeler, Sir John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Whitney, Ray


Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)
Whittingdale, John


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Spink, Dr Robert
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spring, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Sproat, Iain
Willetts, David


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wilshire, David


Stanley, Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Stephen, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Stern, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Allan
Young, Sir George


Streeter, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sumberg, David
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Sweeney, Walter
Mr. Richard Ottaway,




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bradley, Keith


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ainger, Nick
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Allen, Graham
Burden, Richard


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Byers, Stephen


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Caborn, Richard


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Callaghan, Jim


Ashdown, Paddy
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ashton, Joseph
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Austin-Walker, John
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell-Savours, D N


Barnes, Harry
Cann, Jamie


Barron, Kevin
Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)


Battle, John
Chidgey, David


Bayley, Hugh
Chisholm, Malcolm


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Church, Ms Judith


Beggs, Roy
Clapham, Michael


Beith, A J
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bell, Stuart
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Benn, Tony
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bennett, Andrew F
Clelland, David


Benton, Joe
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bermingham, Gerald
Coffey, Ms Ann


Berry, Roger
Cohen, Harry


Betts, Clive
Connarty, Michael


Blair, Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Blunkett, David
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Boateng, Paul
Corbett, Robin


Boyes, Roland
Corbyn, Jeremy





Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Doug


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunningham, Dr John
Hume, John


Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)
Hutton, John


Dafis, Cynog
Illsley, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Ingram, Adam


Darling, Alistair
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)


Davidson, Ian
Janner, Greville


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)
Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)


Denham, John
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)


Dixon, Don
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)


Dobson, Frank
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Dowd, Jim
Kaufman, Gerald


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Keen, Alan


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)


Eastham, Ken
Khabra, Piara S


Etherington, Bill
Kilfoyle, Peter


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Kirkwood, Archy


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Fatchett, Derek
Lewis, Terry


Faulds, Andrew
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Litherland, Robert


Fisher, Mark
Livingstone, Ken


Flynn, Paul
Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Foster, Derek
Loyden, Eddie


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Foulkes, George
McAllion, John


Fraser, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)


Galbraith, Sam
McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Galloway, George
McCrea, Rev William


Gapes, Mike
Macdonald, Calum


Garrett, John
McFall, John


George, Bruce
McKelvey, William


Gerrard, Neil
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gilbert, Dr John
McLeish, Henry


Godman, Dr Norman A
McMaster, Gordon


Godsiff, Roger
McNamara, Kevin


Golding, Mrs Llin
MacShane, Denis


Gordon, Ms Mildred
McWilliam, John


Graham, Thomas
Madden, Max


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Maginnis, Ken


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grocott, Bruce
Mallon, Seamus


Gunnell, John
Mendelson, Peter


Hain, Peter
Marek, Dr John


Hall, Mike
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hanson, David
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Hardy, Peter
Martlew, Eric


Harman, Ms Harriet
Maxton, John


Harvey, Nick
Meacher, Michael


Hattersley, Roy
Meale, Alan


Henderson, Doug
Michael, Alun


Hendron, Dr Joe
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Heppell, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Milburn, Alan


Hinchliffe, David
Miller, Andrew


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hoey, Miss Kate
Molyneaux, Sir James


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Home Robertson, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Hood, Jimmy
Morley, Elliot


Hoon, Geoffrey
Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Howells, Dr Kim
Mowlam, Ms Marjorie






Mudie, George
Smith, Chris (Islington S)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Murphy, Paul
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)
Snape, Peter


Oakes, Gordon
Soley, Clive


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Spearing, Nigel


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Spellar, John


Olner, Bill
Steel, Sir David


O'Neill, Martin
Stevenson, George


Orme, Stanley
Stott, Roger


Paisley, Rev Ian
Strang, Dr Gavin


Parry, Robert
Straw, Jack


Pearson, Ian
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, John D (Strangf'd)


Pike, Peter L
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)
Thurnham, Peter


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Timms, Stephen


Prescott, John
Tipping, Paddy


Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Touhig, Don


Purchase, Ken
Trickett, Jon


Quin, Ms Joyce
Trimble, David


Radice, Giles
Tyler, Paul


Randall, Stuart
Vaz, Keith


Raynsford, Nick
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


Reid, Dr John
Walker, Sir Harold


Rendel, David
Wallace, James


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Walley, Ms Joan


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Wareing, Robert N


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Watson, Mike


Rogers, Allan
Welsh, Andrew


Rooker, Jeff
Wicks, Malcolm


Rooney, Terry
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Brian


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Winnick, David


Salmond, Alen
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sedgemore, Brian
Worthington, Tony


Sheerman, Barry
Wray, Jimmy


Sheldon, Robert
Wright, Dr Tony


Shore, Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Short, Ms Clare



Simpson, Alan
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. Dennis Turner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government on the action it has taken to deal with the BSE crisis which has led to the restoration of consumer confidence; welcomes the package of support the Government has provided to the beef industry; notes the significant improvement in the measures to deal with the disposal of animals over 30 months of age and the progress made towards meeting the criteria set out in the agreement for lifting the European ban on British beef; and urges the Labour Party to drop its cynical political opportunism at the expense of many who depend on this important industry.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

HEALTH AND SAFETY

That the draft Health and Safety (Repeals and Revocations) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 23rd October, be approved.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Question agreed to.

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the remaining motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

INCOME TAX

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Latvia) Order 1996 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 23rd October.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Denmark) Order 1996 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 23rd October.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Finland) Order 1996 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 23rd October.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (China) Order 1996 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 23rd October.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Republic of Korea) Order 1996 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 28th October.—[Mr. Brandreth]

Question agreed to.

Land Holding (Scotland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Mr. Jimmy Hood: I have long awaited the opportunity to have this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I should like to thank Madam Speaker for finally selecting me to have the Adjournment debate.
Last Wednesday, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) had a debate on land reform in Scotland. I congratulate him on his success in raising the issue, which I intend to cover in more detail than the hon. Gentleman and the other hon. Members managed to do then. The hon. Gentleman admitted that he exercised some restraint when describing the behaviour and antics of Mr. Brian Hamilton, the so-called "raider of the lost titles", but I can tell the House that I intend to free myself from such restraint. I intend to speak based on my experience of meeting him. My opinion of him is not a good one, and I am sure that, having heard of that man's activities, most will share my view.
I first became aware of the problem through a local councillor for Boghead, Councillor Esther Serrels, deputy provost of South Lanarkshire council. I would like to record my thanks to and appreciation of Councillor Serrels for her outstanding and tireless work on behalf of the people of Boghead and Kirkmuirhill, who have been on the receiving end of those outdated and abused Scottish land laws.
Councillor Serrels arranged a meeting at my constituency office on 26 August, which was also attended by a delegation of Boghead residents. They informed me of a litany of harassment, threats and intimidation. For example, bank accounts had been arrested, sheriff officers had served warrants, bailiffs had evaluated household goods for warrant sales, and threats of evictions had been made, as well as repeated calls of a threatening and intimidating nature. Such calls seem to be a common feature of Mr. Hamilton's tactics.
There was the case of Mr. and Mrs. Reid. Hamilton obtained an eviction order to evict them from the home in which they had lived for the previous 20 years, after a dispute over the ownership. The previous owner was an old lady who had sold the house to the Reids for £500. She gave them a receipt for the sale, but died two weeks later, before conveyancing had been properly completed. Mr. Hamilton reputedly bought the right of claim for ownership from the old lady's family for £4,000. He sued Mr. Reid for £29,000, in addition to £11,000 in back casualty payments.
Hamilton's attitude towards the Reids was vicious and venomous, and his behaviour was abusive and derogatory. He revelled in the torment that he inflicted on the couple.
I attended a public meeting in Boghead, on 11 September 1996, and met members of the community—among whom were some ordinary people who had been living a normal life one minute, but whose lives were threatened and virtually ruined the next. Forty families have been affected in Boghead, but they have received little or no help, except for the comfort of concern expressed by each other, their local councillor and their Member of Parliament, and by some other supporters.
I decided to try to meet Mr. Hamilton to see at first hand what type of person threatens and intimidates an 88-year-old pensioner and a young widow and evicts people such as the Reids from their homes. I wrote to him, requesting a meeting. He agreed. I announced that Councillor Serrells and I would travel to Stonehaven, on Friday 27 September 1996, to discuss all the issues. Hamilton immediately released a statement to the press, stating that he would not meet with "that woman Serrells". It seems that Councillor Serrells had said something critical of his conduct—which should surprise no one.
I telephoned Hamilton, and I told him that Councillor Serrells was the local councillor, and that he was objecting to the attendance of one of the most decent, respected and admired women in the county of Lanarkshire. He reluctantly withdrew his objection to her attendance, and she and I set off to meet "the raider of the lost titles".
We decided that our approach would be to express our concerns, as expressed to us by our constituents, and then to listen to him and allow him to talk as much as possible. I was keen to discover what sort of chap he was, and he certainly displayed conduct that could be described as evil. Our meeting lasted for two hours, and the experience was worth the three-hour drive up and the three-hour drive back.
I should say something about how Hamilton behaved and operated in Boghead. Last Wednesday, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan briefly mentioned George Malone, but—understandably, because of time factors—he did not give a full account of Mr. Malone's treatment. Hamilton had initially demanded £9,000 from George Malone, an 82-year-old pensioner. He then reduced his demand to £4,800 and said, "Pay up and shut up, or I will withdraw my offer." The debt owed to Hamilton for a casualty fee was, in pre-decimalisation money, 1s 7d—or 8.5p in modern currency. Hamilton was trying to intimidate that old man to pay him £9,000 to buy the casualty that he owned on the house. When Mr. Malone passes on, there will be no casualty fee due because the house will pass to his son. When Hamilton agreed during our meeting to drop his demand against Mr. Malone, it may have been influenced by the fact that he was going to get nothing this side of 20 years anyway, although he still owns the casualty for the property. I could cite many more examples but I shall give only a few because of the constraints of time.
Mrs. Anne Judge, a young widow recently bereaved, had her bank account frozen by Hamilton. Bailiffs and sheriffs were sent round to value her property for warrant sales. Her lawyer behaved less than honourably too, by running up further legal bills when he knew that he and/or his firm had failed Mr. and Mrs. Judge by not properly advising her and her then husband of their liabilities when they bought the property. When Hamilton froze their bank account, he had the neck to telephone her to say that he had to do it so that she would push her lawyer into a quick settlement. That young woman had been widowed for only five months and Hamilton had no regard for her well-being. He was driven by greed for money.
In another case, a young couple, Fiona and Hunter Fairley, bought their home as an investment with a view to renovating and improving it. Like Mrs. Judge, Mr. and Mrs. Fairley were not served well by their lawyer, Mr. Scanlon, and subsequently had to sue him. Mr. and Mrs. Fairley were devastated by their experience and put


it down on paper for me to consider before speaking in this debate. What the House is about to hear is not an isolated case—indeed, far from it. Their experience is nearer the norm when evaluating Mr. Hamilton's activities and behaviour.
The couple wrote:
October 1994
I was contacted by Mr. Hamilton concerning the feu on our 999 year lease. I immediately contacted our solicitor at the time (Mr. Scanlon). He said he would retrieve our title deeds to review them.
Mr. Hamilton phoned again, explained about the feu and pointed out that it had not been paid for a number of years. As we now owned the property it fell on us to pay for previous owners. At the time Mr. Hamilton seemed friendly. We thought he was working on behalf of the current landlord. We readily accepted any advice he gave us. As he put it he was just doing his job.
Mr. Scanlon didn't seem to be bothered about the feu. He thought it would be thrown out of court as it was an old law.
… Mr. Hamilton seemed to think that Mr. Scanlon would pass it on to his insurers to pay, as he had not seen the clause in the title of deeds before we bought the house. We thought it best to leave it in the hand of our solicitor as he knew about these things.
Mr. Hamilton phoned regularly until the end of February to find what was happening as seemingly he couldn't get in contact with Mr. Scanlon.
February. We received a summons to attend a court hearing on behalf of Mr. Hamilton. We contacted our solicitor again. He said he would get a stay of action until we could prepare a case to defend ourselves.
March 20th. After phoning Mr. Scanlon repeatedly over the last couple of weeks I eventually got to speak to him. He told me that everything was fine and that he would get in contact with me if anything happened.
March 28th. Mr. Hamilton contacted me to say that we were supposed to have been in court on March 14th and that Mr. Scanlon sent another solicitor to court to say that Mr. Scanlon had resigned from our case.
The court ruled in favour of Mr. Hamilton.
…December. Mr. Hamilton threatened us with sheriff officers. It has been difficult to further the case as Mr. Scanlon is keeping some of our case notes from us.
Our new solicitor has written repeatedly asking for the remainder of our file, but Mr. Scanlon is ignoring them.
Our solicitor wrote to the Law Society complaining about Mr. Scanlon. I also phoned them.
Knock at door. Two men hand me a writ. It said if we don't pay Mr. Hamilton the money that we owe him, sheriff officers will come into our house and value our possessions for sale. Our solicitor contacted Mr. Hamilton's solicitor to ask what was going on. Mr. Hamilton had agreed to wait for his money until we could sue Mr. Scanlon.
Two days later I got another phone call from Mr. Hamilton. I asked him what he was playing at sending sheriff officers with a writ after he had said he would wait for his money. He replied that he didn't think our solicitor was keeping on the ball and this was just to scare us so as we would get the ball rolling. I explained that it was Mr. Scanlon who was holding it up.
A week before Christmas, took some of our possessions out of our house in case the sheriff officers came back. Was scared in case they took the kids' presents.
January. Keep getting phone calls from Mr. Hamilton. He keeps hassling us. Informed our solicitor to write to Mr. Hamilton's solicitor to tell him to stop hassling us and to get in contact through my solicitor and not phone me.

May. The Sun Alliance (Mr. Scanlon's insurers) got in touch with Mr. Hamilton to sort out the mess. They have agreed on a sum for the feu and are trying to agree a sum for buying the casualty clause.
June. Mr. Hamilton is still hassling us. He called to inform me that the insurance company might get in touch to offer us a sum of money if we don't claim anything else after they pay the feu to Mr. Hamilton. He said it would be in our own interest if we refused it as they would approach him with a better sum. I refused and said I'd think about it. He then told me that if I accepted the money that they offered then I would still have the clause on the house and if we passed the house to the boys in years to come he would still get his money.
Phoned solicitor to write to Mr. Hamilton's solicitor again telling him to stop phoning us.
July. At last! Solicitor asked to see us to sign the papers confirming Sun Alliance had paid Mr. Hamilton.
Now we don't have this hanging over our heads any more. Sun Alliance also wanted us to sign a letter stating that we won't be making any further claims against Mr. Scanlon. We refused. We are awaiting word from our solicitor on whether the Law Society will reprimand Mr. Scanlon.
Those are not the actions of a decent person who was only taking advantage of the law.
Before coming to my conclusions, I want to alert hon. Members to another problem that could potentially devastate private home owners in Scotland—superiorities. Do hon. Members have superiors over their homes?
I recently met a constituent who has given me permission to mention his case here tonight—Mr. Maurice Benyon of 12 South avenue, Carluke. Mr. Benyon lives on what he describes as a Barratt estate in Carluke. He bought a house from Barratt and had extra land where he wanted to build another building. He applied for planning permission but was told by Barratt or its agents that they were the superior of the estate and that he would have to pay them £5,000 for permission to build. The superior can also charge for significant alterations to homes or extensions. The potential for panic and damage to the housing market is overwhelming. That is why this outdated law has to be changed.
I want to draw my remarks to a close. I apologise for the time that I have taken, but I hope that hon. Members agree that the people's stories had to be told. I hope that I have done that tonight.
Mr. Hamilton challenged me to name any individuals who have had to pay him money directly. I can answer his challenge tonight.
The masonic hall in our area paid Mr. Hamilton £6,300; it was not the insurers. The local hairdresser's shop paid him £1,150; it was not the insurers. A plant hire shop paid him £255; it was not the insurers. Mrs. Judge, a recent widow, and Mr. and Mrs. Arlott are still being drawn through the courts, defending themselves from demands for many thousands of pounds.
Mr. Hamilton has sought to portray himself as a man who is only exploiting a bad law, and he says that only lawyers get hurt. The media, while being been critical of him, have assisted in fostering that perception. I met the man and I have seen what he has done to good, decent people, from an 82-year-old pensioner to a recently widowed woman, and many others.
Mr. Hamilton is not just a land speculator. He is an evil, twisted man. He invades people's lives and seeks to destroy them on the altar of making money from a bad law. When I met him, I had the impression that he probably had a very unhappy childhood. He is so


embittered. His hatred for Mr. and Mrs. Reid, whom he had never met, but whom he sought to destroy, was sickening to see.
I say to the Hamiltons of this land, "When you seek to deprive people of their dignity, you expose your own lack of it." I say to the Hamiltons of this land, "When you attack and abuse my people, as you did the people of Boghead, you are awakening a determination in me to rid Scotland of your like—the raiders of lost morals." I say to the Minister tonight, "Get off your backside and get the Scottish land laws reformed and modernised to take us into the new millennium without the feudal entrails of the worst moments of our history."
I cannot help but reflect on the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) last Wednesday. He reminded us that the 1979 Labour Government were in the process of changing the Scottish land laws to do we are seeking to do now. The Minister today can do what Labour was prevented from doing in 1979. I invite him to get on with it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I first congratulate the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on securing this Adjournment debate. I thank him for raising again the issue of leasehold casualty payments which, as we have heard in his speech, are causing grave difficulties for some of his constituents.
I understand and appreciate the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has expressed about some of the demands that are being made on his constituents. This matter was touched on briefly in the House last week when, hon. Members will recall, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) secured a debate on land tenure and land ownership in Scotland. On that occasion, I expressed my deep concern for owners of leasehold properties, such as those in Boghead in Lanarkshire, who were being confronted by demands for casualty payments.
However, as I told the House then, although the Government are concerned about the severe distress being caused to some tenants, neither Ministers nor their officials have any powers to intervene in individual cases of dispute. Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained some of the background to the problem.
The problem of casualty payments relates specifically to leasehold property. As hon. Members will be aware, very little land in Scotland is held on leasehold tenure. What there is is concentrated in particular geographical areas, reflecting the practice of a few earlier landlords leasing to private householders instead of feuing. Consequently, a preponderance of titles in a small village may be leasehold whereas few if any residential titles in a large town or city will be. Even in areas where leasehold is common, no new long residential leases can now be created following the passing of the Land Tenure Reform (Scotland) Act 1974.
The incidence of casualty clauses in leasehold titles is a further imponderable, but again they appear to be concentrated in individual estates. A casualty is a payment falling due to a superior or landlord on the happening of events of uncertain date or occurrence. They are usually based on one year's net rental value of the property. Casualties relating to properties held on feudal tenure were progressively abolished by the Feudal Casualties

(Scotland) Act 1914. The imposition of leasehold casualties in new leases was prohibited by section 16 of the Land Tenure Reform (Scotland) Act 1974.
The landlord continues, however, to have the right to collect casualties that were imposed on a long lease before that date. Therefore, the problem of casualty payments is restricted to a relatively small number of people with existing leasehold casualty clauses in leasehold titles in specific parts of Scotland.
Clearly, solicitors should advise their clients of the existence of such casualties when acting on their behalf in the purchase of a property that is held under a leasehold, as opposed to a feudal title. As leaseholds, and therefore leasehold casualties, are uncommon except in certain geographical areas such as Lanarkshire and are couched in unfamiliar terms, they can easily be overlooked by solicitors.
Until recently, many if not most landlords did not bother to collect casualty payments. Now, however, some new landlords have acquired leasehold interests with the specific intention of collecting long-neglected payments. Tenants may therefore be confronted by an unexpected demand for a payment. In addition, it is possible that landlords may succeed in an attempt to show that incoming tenants are liable for past unclaimed casualties.
Although we all sympathise with the tenants who have been placed in such a position, and I should like to record my own personal distaste for the methods being employed to extract payment, I must reiterate that leasehold casualty payments remain lawful, legitimate burdens on leasehold property.
The duty falls on solicitors acting for clients intending to purchase leasehold property to identify provisions for leasehold casualties in the title deeds and to warn their clients of the possible consequences. If the solicitor fails in that duty, he lays himself open to a claim for negligence against his professional indemnity insurance.
I understand that the landlord of the properties in Boghead is encouraging tenants to make such negligence claims against solicitors who acted for them in the purchase of their properties as a means of making the casualty payments.
The hon. Gentleman asked for legislation in order to alleviate the problem. It would be ideal if we could wave some legislative wand to solve the problems of the tenants in Boghead and elsewhere. Regrettably, in the real world, there is no easy solution.
Existing leasehold casualties cannot simply be abolished without making provision for compensation for the landlords for loss of future income. To do so would be to contravene the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Casualty payments that are already due would be unaffected and would remain payable by the tenant. Therefore, nothing can be done to change the present position of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. Their recourse has to be to their solicitors.
I am aware that others have suggested two possible solutions.

Mr. Hood: Many of my constituents in Boghead will be depressed to hear the Minister's response. It is a tragedy that we are giving in to such people as Hamilton.


All I have heard is an apology for what has happened in my constituency and I find the Minister's reply truly offensive.

Mr. Robertson: I did not intend to be offensive. I was merely setting out the position and pointing out to the hon. Gentleman why the action that he has requested is, in part, impossible.
Part 1 of the Long Leases (Scotland) Act 1954 allowed tenants to convert leases into feus for a payment in compensation to the landlord. The Act provided that this could be done only during a period of five years after the passing of the Act.
It has been suggested that that legislation should be resurrected. This would not, however, remove the need to provide for compensation to landlords, nor would it do anything to help tenants where casualty payments are already due.
The other possible solution involves the Feudal Casualties (Scotland) Act 1914, which banned the creation of any new feudal casualties after the commencement of the Act, as has since happened for leasehold casualties in the Land Tenure (Scotland) Act 1974. It also set up a system for redemption of old ones within 15 years, either by agreement or upon payment of compensation by the proprietor to the superior to a scale contained in the Act. Redemption other than by agreement did not apply to any casualties that were already due. That meant that if the feudal superior did not agree, the owner had to compensate him for the loss of income.
Section 23 of the 1914 Act states that the Court of Session may provide by Act of Sederunt for the redemption and extinction of
any rights of the nature substantially of casualties which are not comprised within the scope of this Act
on terms seeming to the court to be just and equitable on the analogy of the provisions of the Act.
I understand that the possibility of an Act of Sederunt under section 23 to provide for the compulsory redemption and extinction of leasehold as opposed to feudal casualties has been considered. There were, however, concerns both about the vires of the action

proposed, particularly given the likelihood of legal challenge from the more commercially minded landlords, and about the resources that the Court of Session would need in order to determine realistic compensation rates for landlords. In any event, the proposal would do nothing to alleviate the immediate problems in Boghead.
A real solution to the problem of leasehold casualties can come only with reform of the law on long leases in general and as part of a package that involves compensation. The Scottish Law Commission is to look at the law on long residential leases as part of the major review of property law that it is at present undertaking. The commission cannot take matters forward until it has completed its present work on the law of the tenement and feudal system.
No one who was present at the Adjournment debate last week can doubt the strength of feeling of honourable Members from both sides of the House over the need to abolish the remaining aspects of the feudal system. As I made clear at that time, the Government are fully committed to doing so as soon as possible once we have received the commission's report.
Reform of the law of the tenement is also very important and will affect many people in Scotland. It has to be right that the commission tackles work in those vital areas first. I understand that the commission hopes to issue its report on the law of the tenement during 1997 and on abolition of the feudal system thereafter. It will, however, require to devote all its property law resources to achieving that: feudalism has survived for nearly 1,000 years and is deeply embedded in the private law of Scotland. It is an immensely complicated area of law. The abolition of one system of land tenure and its replacement with a new system of absolute ownership requires a great deal of consideration and public consultation. Many conflicting points have already been raised and will have to be taken fully into account.
Once the commission's report on the feudal system is delivered it can turn to leasehold tenure. No legislative solution can help the residents of Boghead whose leasehold casualties are already due. Once again, I wish to express my sympathy for their plight and my hope that their individual difficulties may be speedily resolved.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.